Apparent chemical weapon attacks in Syria

[alpine_saint]

The French can't just "get on with it just now because the Charles de Gaulle is still in dry dock and the only surface vessel actually capable of launching cruise missiles is not yet in active service. So that would mean sending one of the nuclear capable submarines down there and that won't happen. The Aquitaine will be in active service probably by the end of September and the modified Scalps are ready to go....in theory. However now Fabius is saying well yes indignation is all well and good but now we need to reflect on the situation..

 

FFS, whats the matter with it now ?

[dubai_phil]

Take out the word Conspiracy from Pap's postings and replace it with Incompetence then what he says makes more sense.

 

The simple fact is that The West simply doesn't understand how to deal with Arab Leaders like Saddam et al. They all have "Small Penis Syndrome". The more you DEMAND, the more they rebuff you.

 

We always used to say the way to get rid of Bashar was to give him full approval ratings and DEMAND that he stays in Power for ever - he'd be off before you could say where's the keys?

[Window Cleaner]

FFS, whats the matter with it now ?

 

routine maintainence,think my lad said it was a bit of a problem with one of the propeller shafts or similar, should be afloat again any day now but I guess there'll be some sea trials.

 

belay my last, the CDG is just about good to go.

Edited 28 August, 2013 by Window Cleaner

[OldNick]

Am I completely misunderstanding the situation or is this all, in reality, centred around 'protecting' Israel?

i think that could be the basis of this. We are controlled by the Israelis friends who are in the highest places in Western society where they can exert the most pressure, and manipulate our society.

[Verbal]

The problem is we don't KNOW we are being lied to. The US, UK and France have been itching to get rid of the Syrian regime for ages so it does make anything they say unbelievable but if Assad is gassing his own people then something needs to be done - and will be despite any conspiracy theories.

 

I doubt what the UN inspectors will say will make much difference, they will just find a bunch of shells that had gas in. The US will already know who was responsible.

 

Agreed, we don't know what the US and UK governments know - and others suggesting that they have "no evidence" are being foolish, quite frankly. The "there-is-no- evidence" line assumes that governments have only the information already publicly available, which, to say the least, is a bit of a stretch. I doubt anyone on Saintsweb has a satellite in geostationary orbit over Syria, but it's not unreasonable to assume that Western governments do, as, in all probability, do the Russians. If they do, might they have the capability to detect heat signatures of missiles fired? I don't know. Can they pinpoint locations very precisely? I don't know. Do governments have other intel - hard to believe not, but I don't know. Governments may choose to share this information, or we'll have to wait for another whistleblower. And it's reasonable to put pressure on politicians to come clean on what that evidence is. But to say categorically "there is no evidence" is absurd.

 

From various briefings in Washington in London, it appears the Obama administration is pinning direct responsibility for the chemical shelling on the notoriously unstable (and now one-legged after an assassination attempt) Maher Assad, Bashar's "enforcer" brother. The attack on the suburbs was in revenge for an unsuccessful assassination attempt on Bashar himself two weeks ago, which left his closest bodyguard dead and Bashar cowering in a mosque. The assassination attempt was mounted by rebels based in the suburbs that were subsequently hit by the chemical weapons. As to the quality of the evidence to back all this up, we wait and see.

 

As for Western governments itching to get rid of Syria, in the Middle East it's fair to say that nothing is so simple - however "obvious" it might appear to be. Nor does the claim of "natural resources" stand up - WHAT natural resources?

 

Finally, the "doing nothing" option is obviously appealing, especially if we falsely convince ourselves, in time-honoured fashion, that xyz "do not have the same respect for life as we do." The problem, though, is now not confined to Syria. The use of chemical weapons poses a much wider threat regionally. The use of chemical weapons (as distinct from biological weapons) has also been banned since 1925, and the only two instances, prior to the Syrian conflict, when that ban has been breached was by Saddam Hussein in the Kurdish town of Halabja and Mussolini in what was then Abyssinia (now Ethiopia). Not even Hitler used them.

 

So the issues of evidence, motive, and consequences are all far more complex than they might appear. Some open, reasoned, open debate by our leading politicians would not go amiss in presenting the case for any action taken - and perhaps in doing so they might construct a response that does more good than harm in a place where far too much harm has already been done.

[pap]

Oh come on pap . It's all well and good to blame Cameron and co . But again you seem to be supporting the Russians in their stance . They support Assad . I have no idea who used the weapons apart from the fact they were used . If its the other lot then I would have thought the Russians would have provided evidence that it was the rebels .

 

There's a big difference between the Russia and the Western agitators. Only one group is looking to start a war. I completely accept that Russia will have its own motives here. It does business with Syria, and has been a long-time ally.

 

We have no place in this conflict, which wouldn't exist without funding from other Arab states. I've been enjoying Dubai Phil's perspective on all of this. People talk of the war in Syria as if its just another spurt from the Arab Spring. The reality is that external powers have been seeking to effect regime change for the past two years. Seen in that context, we have every reason to question the responsible parties, particularly as the "Assad is undeniably guilty" ( even though we have no proof ). Syria was told in no uncertain terms that the use of chemical weapons was a red line that'd invite international condemnation and mobilisation. That it would choose to do so when it has the upper hand is a ridiculous notion.

 

I'd like to think that the pair of us have more respect for each others' posts than perhaps has been the case in the past, and I'm not suggesting Assad is an angel. However, we will lose more moral authority through these actions. Anyone outside our Anglo-American bubble with a map can see what is happening here. Compare the stability of that region with what is was 20 years ago and ask yourself, is more Western intervention the solution or the problem?

 

We need to get the f**k out of that region, get an independent foreign policy and act like the "been there, done it" mature nation we surely are. Hopefully, some future Prime Minister will have the balls to apologise for the hell we've helped to create in the region.

[pap]

It is a shame Pap that when you have some decent points to make (as you do here for example) it is difficult to take you seriously due to the bizarre conspiracies you chose to entertain regarding 9/11 and the recent London attack.

 

That's one way of looking at it, although perhaps you should turn that on its head. Maybe if you have considered many of my points seriously in the past, you should be more open to some of the most outlandish stuff I suggest.

 

As I said before, we all live in an Anglo-American bubble. The propaganda currently being spouted on what are supposed to be impartial news channels is amazing. Further, I know that any time I discuss inflammatory issues that affect issues in that bubble, particularly when the emotional angle has been stoked, I'm going to catch a load of crap for expressing those opinions. So be it.

 

Outside of our bubble, such ideas are openly discussed. The main difference is that those discussing them aren't instantly labelled crackpots. If I had to characterise the majority of my posts, I'd say that a vast majority of them are fuelled by justifiable distrust of Western motives. We market ourselves as lovers of freedom and transparency, yet put whistleblowers away for 35 years. We condemn other countries for allegedly using chemical weapons, yet the US was fine to use them at Fallujah. Drone strikes cause collateral damage of around 90%.

 

The West trying to use moral authority in lieu of evidence is as funny as it is tragic.

[Gemmel]

Syria was told in no uncertain terms that the use of chemical weapons was a red line that'd invite international condemnation and mobilisation. That it would choose to do so when it has the upper hand is a ridiculous notion.

 

This is where the problem is pap, in that single sweeping statement, you have dismissed in it's entirety, the notion that Assad could have released the chemical weapons.

 

Even I am happy to consider the options that it was "A.N Other" (Even over and above the rebels), but I am guessing, judging by how "ridiculous" you find the notion, that any amount of evidence or proof, you will simply dismiss as lies and propaganda etc. etc.

 

To suggest that "Assad is no angel" is somewhat of an understatement and has the history and traits to suggest it would actually be far more "ridiculous" to rule out.

 

You could of course be right, but your mind appears already to be closed on the issue, which seems to be at odds with the pre-requisite mindset of your ilk.

 

It's a mess - I think every poster agrees on that and I like you don't want us involved, nor do I profess to know enough about the complicated politics of the region to truly understand it, but I won't be rushing to any conclusions regarding the chemical weapons, just yet.

[hypochondriac]

Bit patronising dont you think to suggest that the only reason you cop flack is because you dare to present a differing point of view? I would say it is because some of your conclusions appear laughably outlandish to a lot of sensible people. Of course it is possible that I have been brainwashed by western media propaganda but I would consider it very unlikely and it is perfectly possible to hold a healthy distrust of those in power in the West yet still not come to the conclusions that you have (ie that the London attack involved actors posing as civilians or that the US government faked the Boston bombings.) It is very possible that governments lie to us and that they do things that we do not know about, I just consider it virtually impossible that they would be able to pull off something like 9/11 or the moon landings and get away with it without anyone knowing. The way you present it it is as if you are the enlightened one because you question every single event you hear about whilst everyone else are morons because they consider each case and if it seems highly improbable to be a conspiracy then they mostly dismiss it.

 

On the subject of Syria I agree that we need to wait for concrete proof rather than go in all guns blazing as we have been burnt before. I think everyone agrees that America are hypocrites and no one is labelling you are crackpot for discussing how the government could lie to you. It's the other crazy ideas that give you that title.

[dubai_phil]

Lolz just appeared in my In Box (To help y'all out General Sisi is an Egyptian General)

 

Iran is backing Assad. Gulf states are against Assad!

Assad is against Muslim Brotherhood.

 

Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi.

But Gulf states are pro Sisi!

 

Which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood!

Iran is pro Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood!

Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the US!

Gulf states are pro US.

 

But Turkey is with Gulf states against Assad;

 

yet Turkey is pro Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi.

 

And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf states!

Welcome to the Middle East and have a nice day.

[Window Cleaner]

Lolz just appeared in my In Box (To help y'all out General Sisi is an Egyptian General)

 

Iran is backing Assad. Gulf states are against Assad!

Assad is against Muslim Brotherhood.

 

Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi.

But Gulf states are pro Sisi!

 

Which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood!

Iran is pro Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood!

Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the US!

Gulf states are pro US.

 

But Turkey is with Gulf states against Assad;

 

yet Turkey is pro Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi.

 

And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf states!

Welcome to the Middle East and have a nice day.

 

 

it just shows that in the Middle East as we traditionally call it there is no black or white, just shades of grey.

[pap]

Bit patronising dont you think to suggest that the only reason you cop flack is because you dare to present a differing point of view? I would say it is because some of your conclusions appear laughably outlandish to a lot of sensible people.

 

I wasn't suggesting that at all. I'm saying that expressing those opinions in the Anglo-American bubble gets the flak. I could have the same discussions on here with people in other parts of the world and get a completely different reaction. I don't think that's patronising, more a recognition of reality from someone who has been through the ringer.

 

Of course it is possible that I have been brainwashed by western media propaganda but I would consider it very unlikely and it is perfectly possible to hold a healthy distrust of those in power in the West yet still not come to the conclusions that you have (ie that the London attack involved actors posing as civilians or that the US government faked the Boston bombings.) It is very possible that governments lie to us and that they do things that we do not know about, I just consider it virtually impossible that they would be able to pull off something like 9/11 or the moon landings and get away with it without anyone knowing. The way you present it it is as if you are the enlightened one because you question every single event you hear about whilst everyone else are morons because they consider each case and if it seems highly improbable to be a conspiracy then they mostly dismiss it.

 

That's a decision for individuals to make. I'm not saying that someone is a moron for not thinking what I do. In fact, I dish out very little in the way of abuse compared to what I get.

 

On the subject of Syria I agree that we need to wait for concrete proof rather than go in all guns blazing as we have been burnt before. I think everyone agrees that America are hypocrites and no one is labelling you are crackpot for discussing how the government could lie to you. It's the other crazy ideas that give you that title.

 

If I'm a crackpot, I'm in good company. Doubt it though. I reckon I'm just a spiky c**t in the wrong bubble.

[hypochondriac]

I wasn't suggesting that at all. I'm saying that expressing those opinions in the Anglo-American bubble gets the flak. I could have the same discussions on here with people in other parts of the world and get a completely different reaction. I don't think that's patronising, more a recognition of reality from someone who has been through the ringer.

So do you mean if you brought up conspiracy theories concerning the West in other parts of the world you would get a different reaction to over here? If so then yes I agree but all that says is that they live in their own 'bubble' and most aren't fans of the West.

 

 

That's a decision for individuals to make. I'm not saying that someone is a moron for not thinking what I do. In fact, I dish out very little in the way of abuse compared to what I get.

You are very clever linguistically with how you say things but I suspect that you know that presenting certain things how you do will provoke a reaction. Some of the things you imply are clearly offensive to the majority of people.

 

 

If I'm a crackpot, I'm in good company. Doubt it though. I reckon I'm just a spiky c**t in the wrong bubble.

Every person I have ever met who talks of 9/11 conspiracies has been what I would refer to as a nut. Seeing that American bloke on the BBC a few weeks back reinforced that point. I don't understand your talk of bubbles.

[pap]

Every person I have ever met who talks of 9/11 conspiracies has been what I would refer to as a nut. Seeing that American bloke on the BBC a few weeks back reinforced that point. I don't understand your talk of bubbles.

 

Yeah, it can be dangerous projecting your own experience as the whole. Not my experience. I discuss the situation with a number of my mates who have careers across the spectrum. Maybe you're not talking to the right people.

[OldNick]

Yeah, it can be dangerous projecting your own experience as the whole. Not my experience. I discuss the situation with a number of my mates who have careers across the spectrum. Maybe you're not talking to the right people.

Pap, Im not having a pop, do you really still believe the Boston bombing was staged?

I only ask as i watched a programme a few weeks ago about it, and saw the interview of the lady who lost her leg

[hypochondriac]

Yeah, it can be dangerous projecting your own experience as the whole. Not my experience. I discuss the situation with a number of my mates who have careers across the spectrum. Maybe you're not talking to the right people.

 

The same could be said of you. You didn't address my other points either.

[pap]

Pap, Im not having a pop, do you really still believe the Boston bombing was staged?

I only ask as i watched a programme a few weeks ago about it, and saw the interview of the lady who lost her leg

 

tbh, I haven't checked up on Boston for some time now - but every time I go back to catch up, I'm less convinced by the official account. The last time I looked I found a slow-motion frame-by-frame video of people moving into place immediately after the blast. That is well worth seeking out.

 

Belief is probably too strong a word, but I think the likelihood is that Boston was just another event in a strategy of tension.

[pap]

The same could be said of you. You didn't address my other points either.

 

Of course it could, but I reckon I probably know more people than you.

 

As for not addressing your other points, do you really want me to?

 

You said you didn't understand the whole "bubble" thing. Anyone with a bit of travel under their belt will understand what I mean. When you go to other places, the focus of the news is often on different things, normally stuff that is of interest to the locals. I'm fairly sure that news reports in the Spanish bubble on Gibraltar differ massively from those we're seeing on the Beeb. The effects of cultural relativism and vested interests, no doubt.

 

Which returns me to your point. You are offering up your limited life experience as some kind of proof that everyone who places stock in conspiracy theories is a crackpot. I'm merely pointing out that outside of our bubble, conspiracy theories are discussed more openly, more seriously and without the stigma that is perpetuated here. Hell, even this thread is an illustration of how a bit of distance, geographically or culturally, can alter perceptions on something. As you correctly point out, no-one is having a pop at me for suggesting that the rebels launched the attack. Even the deleted Daily Mail article I linked suggesting the same thing passed mostly without comment. It seems we're fine to discuss conspiracy theories, as long as it doesn't involve our own governments or the so-called good guys.

 

Step out of the bubble. Imagine being a neutral observer just pondering the activities of nations on Earth. Who have been the biggest aggressors and killers of people in the last 20 years?

 

(Clue: it's not Assad or the terrorists)

[hypochondriac]

Of course it could, but I reckon I probably know more people than you

What a laughable position to take and you wonder why people don't take you seriously? Dear oh dear this really is schoolyard stuff.

 

As for not addressing your other points, do you really want me to?

Not really. I haven't read below yet but I can imagine what it says. This is what I get for trying to engage you in some semblance of rational conversation.

 

You said you didn't understand the whole "bubble" thing. Anyone with a bit of travel under their belt will understand what I mean. When you go to other places, the focus of the news is often on different things, normally stuff that is of interest to the locals. I'm fairly sure that news reports in the Spanish bubble on Gibraltar differ massively from those we're seeing on the Beeb. The effects of cultural relativism and vested interests, no doubt.

Right now you have said that I do understand what you mean. So by bubble you mean news reports and how things are reported. I would argue that this is massively lessened nowadays by modern technology. It is easy to find two sides to every story with a quick browse of the interweb. Also of course there is satellite telly which enables my girlfriend and her family to tune into Al Jazeera and furnish me with their side of things (her father by the way wholeheartedly supports the government). Television and newspaper are no longer the only medium and the audience are no longer passive.

 

Which returns me to your point. You are offering up your limited life experience as some kind of proof that everyone who places stock in conspiracy theories is a crackpot.

What I said was that every person I have met or seen who hold these views about 9/11 have been what I would consider to be a nut. I don't think people who believe in certain conspiracy theories are nuts but I think to persist with some theories in the face of all evidence because you desperately want it to be true is nutty. I think you have to accept that not every bad thing that happens is some sort of underground conspiracy perpetuated by a government somewhere or the CIA. Sometimes bad things happen and it is that which makes you come across as odd (it may be different in the flesh I would never presume to know what you were like or how you lived your life off of an internet forum.) Now of course that is not definitive and amusingly you are suggesting that you know more people than I do so clearly what you say carries more weight.

 

I'm merely pointing out that outside of our bubble, conspiracy theories are discussed more openly, more seriously and without the stigma that is perpetuated here.

There isn't a stigma attached to all conspiracy theories. There is a stigma attached to ridiculous conspiracy theories where people seek to make a conspiracy out of something which does not exist such as the London attack.

 

Hell, even this thread is an illustration of how a bit of distance, geographically or culturally, can alter perceptions on something. As you correctly point out, no-one is having a pop at me for suggesting that the rebels launched the attack. Even the deleted Daily Mail article I linked suggesting the same thing passed mostly without comment. It seems we're fine to discuss conspiracy theories, as long as it doesn't involve our own governments or the so-called good guys

Nope. We are happy to discuss conspiracy theories that have a hint of plausibility about them. T Fantasy conspiracies are quite rightly dismissed. The issue with Syria has seen people who would normally disagree with you say you may have a point. Do you not think it is because on this issue it is a conspiracy that many believe to be plausible? Can you not see the difference between finding an excuse to go to war (Iraw, Syria) and blowing up a building, murdering your own people and hiring actors to pretend to be killed and blown up? (London, Boston, New York.)

 

Step out of the bubble. Imagine being a neutral observer just pondering the activities of nations on Earth. Who have been the biggest aggressors and killers of people in the last 20 years?

 

(Clue: it's not Assad or the terrorists)

 

I don't disagree and I'm no champion of America. I fail to see what relevance that has on the Boston bombing and London being faked by actors. It would be nice if you responded sensibly for a change instead of idiocy about knowing more people than I do.

Edited 28 August, 2013 by hypochondriac

[Viking Warrior]

PAP I can confirm I do have respect for posts on this matter. The middle east has always been problematic and always will be. I certainly agree with you we have no place in this conflict unless it affects our nationals or soverign areas like Cyprus , Until that happens we should not get involved with any direct miltary action.

I acn see RAF Akrotiri being used as an Airbase. Im not sure how the cypriots on both sides of the divided country would react to this

[hypochondriac]

PAP I can confirm I do have respect for posts on this matter. The middle east has always been problematic and always will be. I certainly agree with you we have no place in this conflict unless it affects our nationals or soverign areas like Cyprus , Until that happens we should not get involved with any direct miltary action.

I acn see RAF Akrotiri being used as an Airbase. Im not sure how the cypriots on both sides of the divided country would react to this

 

Yep I agree with that though I do think we should support action if they can prove that they have used chemical weapons against their own people.

[pap]

Hypo; I'm not sure why you're so defensive about me saying I probably know more people than you. To date, I've lived permanently in four different places, travel far and wide in prosecution of my duties and have met tons of people as a consequence. I've met people as you describe. One bloke in particular wanted me to help him set up a stall in Liverpool. He was into a lot of stuff I wouldn't touch with a bargepole, but he really was an exception.

 

Most of the other people I know with an interest in the subject are as described; professionals who hold down a job. A couple even have previous experience in the forces. You're telling me that everyone you've met is a nutter. One possible conclusion is that you haven't met many people, ergo my point.

 

Of course, another possible conclusion is that you're just as inflexible as you say conspiracy theorists are. Maybe you just think they're crazy because you don't like the stuff they're saying. That's probably a more likely explanation.

 

I've got good friends who I just won't discuss it with after seeing their initial reactions. One of them actually turned white with rage at the time. We're still mates now, and he'll be travelling up for my daughter's 18th birthday party. We just won't discuss politics.

 

Well-publicised atrocities like Boston are the means by which we lurch further into a police state and perpetuate the myth of having an unknowable, undefeatable enemy. Fear is being used to introduce legislation that is against the interests of the people.

 

Do the neutral observer thing again and take a look at all the laws that we have passed in this country since 2001. If you didn't have the context of fear, you'd assume that Britain was incrementally turning itself into a police state. Look at the actions of the United States and the sort of things it gets up to; extraordinary rendition, torture, extra-judicial killing, drone attacks on kids, chemical weapons attacks in Fallujah. Consider the case of the two SAS operatives that were caught in Iraq, dressed as Arabs and caught placing car bombs. The Iraqi police refused to let them go, so the British Army rolled over the cop shop with a tank.

 

These are not the actions of democracies championing freedom. They are the actions of bullies and antagonists. Ask yourself this. If none of these outrages had ever happened, would people accept all the legislation, torture and murder that has been conducted for our sakes, and in our names?

 

Unlikely. You say you don't see the relevance of events that conspiracy theorists discuss, yet they're catalysts for all of this military action. We wouldn't be in the Middle East without them.

[Verbal]

The evidence for the Assad regime’s responsibility for this attack is becoming a little clearer. It seems to consist of the following:

 

An Israeli Defence Force wire tap, the exact contents of which have not yet been released, but seem to consist of a highly placed – and highly panicked – senior Assad official yelling at a Syrian officer for ordering the attack. The general impression, apparently, is that the call raises the question as to whether the Syrians’ central command have proper control over their weapons stocks.

 

Some shells in the chemical attack landed without exploding, and so still contain their warheads. Rather like bullets, the shells will give up forensic evidence of what fired them and from where. The word is that was from a gun battery in a government-held military base to the West of the city. The base is under the command of Assad’s brother, Maher – and the shells were fired by members of his the 155th Brigade of the 4th Armoured Division. This unit, apparently, controls ALL of Syria’s chemical weapons stocks.

 

The unexploded shells will also, of course, enable the inspectors to definitively identify the toxins used in the attack. And the inspectors have collected – and will collect more – tissue and other bio-samples from the dead and inured.

 

Satellite imagery – as yet unspecified.

 

It remains to be seen, of course, whether much of the actual hard content of this evidence finds its way into the public domain. The Israelis may not be so keen, for example, to reveal the extent of their penetration of coded Syrian communications. However, the widespread public reluctance to support even limited military action against the regime may mean that a good amount will come out, without ever being compiled into a “dossier” (!)

 

It seems to me there are two distinct issues here which get confused: the evidence, and the US and British government’s historic misuse of that evidence. It seems highly likely that the evidence itself, taken together, will prove overwhelming that the regime committed this atrocity. Personally, I’d still hope that the weapons inspectors – unlike last time in Iraq – will be given all the time they need to complete their work before the tomahawks start landing.

[hypochondriac]

Hypo; I'm not sure why you're so defensive about me saying I probably know more people than you. To date, I've lived permanently in four different places, travel far and wide in prosecution of my duties and have met tons of people as a consequence. I've met people as you describe. One bloke in particular wanted me to help him set up a stall in Liverpool. He was into a lot of stuff I wouldn't touch with a bargepole, but he really was an exception.

Because it is an utter nonsense to think you know more people than someone you have never met or know nothing about. It is quite possible that you do know more people than me but you have absolutely no way of knowing.

 

Most of the other people I know with an interest in the subject are as described; professionals who hold down a job. A couple even have previous experience in the forces. You're telling me that everyone you've met is a nutter. One possible conclusion is that you haven't met many people, ergo my point.

 

Everyone I have met who vehemently believes that 9/11 was a conspiracy is a nutter correct. It is a possible conclusion but I reject it.

Of course, another possible conclusion is that you're just as inflexible as you say conspiracy theorists are. Maybe you just think they're crazy because you don't like the stuff they're saying. That's probably a more likely explanation

Nope. As already explained, I think they are crazy because they have reached their conspiracy conclusion before looking at any facts and are desperate for it to fit. I also think many of them are crazy because they come across like that bloke American bloke off the BBC a few weeks back or David Icke, trying to ram their theories about lizards and shadowy societies down your throat and will use any number of twisted ways to show you how it must be true. Is it not possible that the Boston bombing just happened and was a bad thing? Or the London attack? Or 9/11? It's not necessarily a conspiracy as you claim.

 

I've got good friends who I just won't discuss it with after seeing their initial reactions. One of them actually turned white with rage at the time. We're still mates now, and he'll be travelling up for my daughter's 18th birthday party. We just won't discuss politics

I can see his point. Suggesting that the London attacks were staged by an actor is pretty insensitive IMO and I can see why some people would be deeply offended.

 

Well-publicised atrocities like Boston are the means by which we lurch further into a police state and perpetuate the myth of having an unknowable, undefeatable enemy. Fear is being used to introduce legislation that is against the interests of the people.

Possibly but that doesn't mean it was created by the government

 

Do the neutral observer thing again and take a look at all the laws that we have passed in this country since 2001. If you didn't have the context of fear, you'd assume that Britain was incrementally turning itself into a police state. Look at the actions of the United States and the sort of things it gets up to; extraordinary rendition, torture, extra-judicial killing, drone attacks on kids, chemical weapons attacks in Fallujah. Consider the case of the two SAS operatives that were caught in Iraq, dressed as Arabs and caught placing car bombs. The Iraqi police refused to let them go, so the British Army rolled over the cop shop with a tank.

Don't disagree here. Again, doesn't mean the London attack or Boston was a conspiracy.

 

These are not the actions of democracies championing freedom. They are the actions of bullies and antagonists. Ask yourself this. If none of these outrages had ever happened, would people accept all the legislation, torture and murder that has been conducted for our sakes, and in our names?

 

Unlikely. You say you don't see the relevance of events that conspiracy theorists discuss, yet they're catalysts for all of this military action. We wouldn't be in the Middle East without them.

There are two separate points there, one about America and London acting inappropriately and introducing too many restrictive laws after terrorist attacks. On those two points I broadly agree and I am under no illusions that America is just as guilty in many cases as the countries they invade. The other points are about you seeing conspiracies in every atrocity. If we accept your theory about governments clamping down on freedom after atrocities, could it not be possible that these bad things just happened independently of any conspiracy (which I believe is what the majority think happened) and that the governments then used these as opportunities?

[pap]

This is where the problem is pap, in that single sweeping statement, you have dismissed in it's entirety, the notion that Assad could have released the chemical weapons.

 

Even I am happy to consider the options that it was "A.N Other" (Even over and above the rebels), but I am guessing, judging by how "ridiculous" you find the notion, that any amount of evidence or proof, you will simply dismiss as lies and propaganda etc. etc.

 

To suggest that "Assad is no angel" is somewhat of an understatement and has the history and traits to suggest it would actually be far more "ridiculous" to rule out.

 

You could of course be right, but your mind appears already to be closed on the issue, which seems to be at odds with the pre-requisite mindset of your ilk.

 

It's a mess - I think every poster agrees on that and I like you don't want us involved, nor do I profess to know enough about the complicated politics of the region to truly understand it, but I won't be rushing to any conclusions regarding the chemical weapons, just yet.

 

The situation before the chemical attack was broadly this; Assad's forces were in the ascendancy. Reports from months back suggested that the relative unity of his army plus better armoured equipment was proving decisive in the conflict, so much so that we had the big fuss about whether it was okay to sell weapons to Syrian rebels to help them in the conflict.

 

Another reason I consider it ridiculous is that UN Chemical Weapons Inspectors were already in Damascus.

 

Let's argue your case though, and I'll try to do a more honest job of it than most.

 

Assad as chemical attack launcher.

 

Short-term gains are expedient control of the territory due to nature of attack. Long-term, he knows he has a fair chance of blaming it on the rebels, particularly with Russian support. He may even be able to "generate" conclusive proof that the rebels did it. He actually has a much better shot of doing that than Western forces, being in situ and all that. So yep, I buy an Assad-led attack as a means of discrediting the rebels as a possibility.

 

What does he have to lose? Orchestrating this attack will bring Western forces upon him, potentially including professional armies that are a match for his own. This point has been made abundantly clear. It looks as if at the very least, bombings are on the horizon. They have the situation contained. All they need to do to win the war is keep doing more of the same. Why wreck that with this action? Even if we argue for the "blame the rebels" position, a smarter plan would have been to use a different chemical weapon to one he uses himself, perhaps using the Russians to procure it.

 

Let's not pretend the West is impartial here. The US is funding the rebels, as are Arab states, Britain and France are selling weapons to them. There is no way on Earth a verdict of "yeah, actually it was the rebels that did it. We're going to attack them instead" is going to be returned.

 

My take is that they'd expected Assad gone by now, didn't really anticipate his tenacity, and have engineered this event to trigger the "red line". I have no doubt that inspectors will discover that chemical weapons were used, but we'll need a thorough investigation to determine who used them. At the speed things are going, and the general state of play at the scene, there is no way that the investigation will conclude before the first shots are fired in Damascus' direction.

[Window Cleaner]

The situation before the chemical attack was broadly this; Assad's forces were in the ascendancy. Reports from months back suggested that the relative unity of his army plus better armoured equipment was proving decisive in the conflict, so much so that we had the big fuss about whether it was okay to sell weapons to Syrian rebels to help them in the conflict.

 

Another reason I consider it ridiculous is that UN Chemical Weapons Inspectors were already in Damascus.

 

Let's argue your case though, and I'll try to do a more honest job of it than most.

 

Assad as chemical attack launcher.

 

Short-term gains are expedient control of the territory due to nature of attack. Long-term, he knows he has a fair chance of blaming it on the rebels, particularly with Russian support. He may even be able to "generate" conclusive proof that the rebels did it. He actually has a much better shot of doing that than Western forces, being in situ and all that. So yep, I buy an Assad-led attack as a means of discrediting the rebels as a possibility.

 

What does he have to lose? Orchestrating this attack will bring Western forces upon him, potentially including professional armies that are a match for his own. This point has been made abundantly clear. It looks as if at the very least, bombings are on the horizon. They have the situation contained. All they need to do to win the war is keep doing more of the same. Why wreck that with this action? Even if we argue for the "blame the rebels" position, a smarter plan would have been to use a different chemical weapon to one he uses himself, perhaps using the Russians to procure it.

 

Let's not pretend the West is impartial here. The US is funding the rebels, as are Arab states, Britain and France are selling weapons to them. There is no way on Earth a verdict of "yeah, actually it was the rebels that did it. We're going to attack them instead" is going to be returned.

 

My take is that they'd expected Assad gone by now, didn't really anticipate his tenacity, and have engineered this event to trigger the "red line". I have no doubt that inspectors will discover that chemical weapons were used, but we'll need a thorough investigation to determine who used them. At the speed things are going, and the general state of play at the scene, there is no way that the investigation will conclude before the first shots are fired in Damascus' direction.

 

Ah pap, you'll be telling us next that 8200 are a devious bunch and will stop at nothing to get Uncle Sam to come round and duff up one of their enemies.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

The real reason we are contemplating taking military action against the vile Assad regime in Syria has little to do with any Human Rights concerns - although let's face it those concerns are genuine enough. The real justification behind this coming war also has nothing to do with some conspiratorial desire of David Cameron to topple Assad or conquer Iran either - I doubt he could care less frankly. For that matter the logic of going to war over chemical weapons makes no bloody sense because how you kill someone is surely a secondary consideration to the fact that you have just killed them. Bayonet, Kalashnikov round, 155mm artillery shell, or nerve gas canister - it's all the bloody same ultimately is it not?

 

No, the real reason we are on the verge of war again is because this Prime Minister - just like Tony Blair and nearly all their predecessors since Churchill - must seek to maintain the principle long term strategy of British foreign policy come what may. That policy is of course that we must continue our strategic alliance with the USA above all other considerations. Once a powerful nation we are now in effect reduced to being the best friend of the biggest boy in the schoolyard. Now some on here might approve of that, some (I'm thinking of you here Pap) will hate that policy with every fibre of your being. But that my friends is the realpolitik of this nations situation as I see it.

 

So what's my opinion on what we should do?

For what it's worth I think the situation is so damn complicated, and the possibilities of making a bad situation even worse so high, that the best thing to do might be to do nothing - although that's a easy thing for any of us to to say because we don't carry the heavy burden of office do we?

So I say we should sit back and let Assad get on with it, safe in the knowledge that we're doing the right thing .... but the next time I see yet more dead Syrian children paraded in front of my TV screens I'll know somewhere deep down inside that that's not bloody true either.

 

 

.

Edited 28 August, 2013 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[Manuel]

I stumbled across this yesterday which might help clear up any misunderstandings.

 

[pap]

I stumbled across this yesterday which might help clear up any misunderstandings.

 

 

For the UK's position, just look at the US position.

[aintforever]

The situation before the chemical attack was broadly this; Assad's forces were in the ascendancy. Reports from months back suggested that the relative unity of his army plus better armoured equipment was proving decisive in the conflict, so much so that we had the big fuss about whether it was okay to sell weapons to Syrian rebels to help them in the conflict.

 

Another reason I consider it ridiculous is that UN Chemical Weapons Inspectors were already in Damascus.

 

Let's argue your case though, and I'll try to do a more honest job of it than most.

 

Assad as chemical attack launcher.

 

Short-term gains are expedient control of the territory due to nature of attack. Long-term, he knows he has a fair chance of blaming it on the rebels, particularly with Russian support. He may even be able to "generate" conclusive proof that the rebels did it. He actually has a much better shot of doing that than Western forces, being in situ and all that. So yep, I buy an Assad-led attack as a means of discrediting the rebels as a possibility.

 

What does he have to lose? Orchestrating this attack will bring Western forces upon him, potentially including professional armies that are a match for his own. This point has been made abundantly clear. It looks as if at the very least, bombings are on the horizon. They have the situation contained. All they need to do to win the war is keep doing more of the same. Why wreck that with this action? Even if we argue for the "blame the rebels" position, a smarter plan would have been to use a different chemical weapon to one he uses himself, perhaps using the Russians to procure it.

 

Let's not pretend the West is impartial here. The US is funding the rebels, as are Arab states, Britain and France are selling weapons to them. There is no way on Earth a verdict of "yeah, actually it was the rebels that did it. We're going to attack them instead" is going to be returned.

 

My take is that they'd expected Assad gone by now, didn't really anticipate his tenacity, and have engineered this event to trigger the "red line". I have no doubt that inspectors will discover that chemical weapons were used, but we'll need a thorough investigation to determine who used them. At the speed things are going, and the general state of play at the scene, there is no way that the investigation will conclude before the first shots are fired in Damascus' direction.

 

The thing is, though it appeared Assad's forces were in the ascendancy, unless you are on the ground it is impossible to say what was going on behind the scenes. Assad might have realised that there will be no end to the rebels funding and he is running out of allies. Or a rogue general made the call to use the gas, or there were some important people in that area he had to kill. We just do not know.

 

I expect they will be able to tell by the type of munitions used and the position they were fired from who was responsible. I also expect agents on the ground already found out before the men with blue helmets turned up.

 

Also, if it was the rebels it didn't make sense for Assad to delay the inspectors. He would have wanted them to go in straight away.

[dubai_phil]

The evidence for the Assad regime’s responsibility for this attack is becoming a little clearer. It seems to consist of the following:

 

An Israeli Defence Force wire tap, the exact contents of which have not yet been released, but seem to consist of a highly placed – and highly panicked – senior Assad official yelling at a Syrian officer for ordering the attack. The general impression, apparently, is that the call raises the question as to whether the Syrians’ central command have proper control over their weapons stocks.

 

Some shells in the chemical attack landed without exploding, and so still contain their warheads. Rather like bullets, the shells will give up forensic evidence of what fired them and from where. The word is that was from a gun battery in a government-held military base to the West of the city. The base is under the command of Assad’s brother, Maher – and the shells were fired by members of his the 155th Brigade of the 4th Armoured Division. This unit, apparently, controls ALL of Syria’s chemical weapons stocks.

 

The unexploded shells will also, of course, enable the inspectors to definitively identify the toxins used in the attack. And the inspectors have collected – and will collect more – tissue and other bio-samples from the dead and inured.

 

Satellite imagery – as yet unspecified.

 

It remains to be seen, of course, whether much of the actual hard content of this evidence finds its way into the public domain. The Israelis may not be so keen, for example, to reveal the extent of their penetration of coded Syrian communications. However, the widespread public reluctance to support even limited military action against the regime may mean that a good amount will come out, without ever being compiled into a “dossier” (!)

 

It seems to me there are two distinct issues here which get confused: the evidence, and the US and British government’s historic misuse of that evidence. It seems highly likely that the evidence itself, taken together, will prove overwhelming that the regime committed this atrocity. Personally, I’d still hope that the weapons inspectors – unlike last time in Iraq – will be given all the time they need to complete their work before the tomahawks start landing.

 

Thanks for that Verbal, shame it got buried in point scoring about old posts on other threads. I'll tell that to my pal so he can let hs family in Damascus what some people think of the issues.

 

The scenario you have posted also gives rise to a fully UN authorised use of weapons as much as it shows an AUTHORISED use.

 

Think we've all seen enough movies (24 Days Later or whatever) to know that Army Units & Commanders can go bonkers.

 

Again, the BURDEN of proof is so very hard

 

Kim what'shisname Moon at the UN is right though. THREAT is now needed not ACTION (but a very REAL threat) but Diplomacy at Gunpoint may form a crack and lead to a proper END PLAN - which is all that the People of Syria really want. They don't want Bashar gone and more deaths, because then the Russian support will have gone and they will start to starve to death

[pap]

The thing is, though it appeared Assad's forces were in the ascendancy, unless you are on the ground it is impossible to say what was going on behind the scenes. Assad might have realised that there will be no end to the rebels funding and he is running out of allies. Or a rogue general made the call to use the gas, or there were some important people in that area he had to kill. We just do not know.

 

I expect they will be able to tell by the type of munitions used and the position they were fired from who was responsible. I also expect agents on the ground already found out before the men with blue helmets turned up.

 

Also, if it was the rebels it didn't make sense for Assad to delay the inspectors. He would have wanted them to go in straight away.

 

I think we can accept that on a general level, there's no substitute for first-hand experience. Equally though, we can look at recent events, the nature and composition of the Syrian forces, where they get their funding from, who we're prepared to do business with (al Qaeda, FFS) and make the determination that Assad was winning. We can also speculate, as we've both done.

 

As for Assad's position; he continues to be supported by the Russians. That's a huge factor, as Russia is still very much part of the "don't f**k with us club". Their Deputy Prime Minister describes the West's approach to the Islamic world as "a monkey playing with a hand grenade", a vivid and accurate metaphor, if Dubai Phil's input is anything to go by. We've certainly shown ourselves to be clueless in creating stable democracies. Baghdad has continued to suffer the effects of indiscriminate bombing, no doubt part of a strategy of tension created there as well.

 

Charlie makes an interesting point when he says that our foreign policy is linked to American foreign policy. It's true, and he is also correct in his assertion that I'm not a fan of that link. Despite the fact that I frequently criticise the actions of our government, I am a proud Brit and have a great affection for our best virtues. I do think we have an obligation to get involved in just conflicts, but I'm also of the opinion that we need to be operating from a strong moral base when we do so. The US has been prosecuting its own form of imperialism since the end of the Second World War. It has orchestrated revolutions, ruined countries with development loans and is now looking to initiate military action on the strength of some passionately pronounced polysyllabic words. "Undeniable". "Vanishingly small". It's all boll*cks designed to impress the same people who equate a big thesaurus with a valid point. There's no proof, it's a huge rush and the West has been sponsoring one side for two years.

 

The problem with being linked to US policy is being linked to Israeli policy by default. They have been agitating for war with Iran for some time, which included Netanyahu's infamous cartoon bomb at the UN. If Western troops prevail in Syria, Iran is surrounded by foes. No prizes for guessing what happens next.

 

Personally, I think intervention in Syria is a massive over-reach and a clear provocation to the Russians. Monkeys with hand grenades, indeed.

Edited 28 August, 2013 by pap

[pap]

Soz, forgot to comment on an earlier point.

 

On it making no sense for Assad to delay the Inspectors from getting to the site. Makes a lot of sense to me. It's a contested area that had just seen combat, wasn't fully under his control and was not safe. The first attempt to get out to the weapons resulted in the inspectors coming under unidentified sniper fire, which may support the "not safe" case, but common sense backs it up in any event. Warzones aren't safe.

 

To say that the delay is proof of complicity is also speculation, yet this is the message that is being endlessly repeated on the news.

 

On a related note, I really don't trust that William Hague after this. Thought he was a straight talker at one point. Comes across as a sinister b*ll****ter now. Inaugural Minister of Truth?

[Jonnyboy]

Hague comes across as the stereotypical smug ar*ehole politician who just loves the sound of his own voice.

[Sheaf Saint]

Hague comes across as the stereotypical smug ar*ehole politician who just loves the sound of his own voice.

 

Was listening to him on the radio news the other day and I remember commenting to my GF along the lines "Do you reckon he talks to his wife like that?"

 

I used to have a modicum of respect for him when he was the opposition leader because he always carried himself well against Blair at PMQs. These days he's just a smug tosser parroting his party line every time he opens his mouth.

[Saint in Paradise]

A quite interesting article here:-

 

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/08/the-debate-over-intervention-in-syria.html

 

.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Someone once said that a week was 'a long time in politics' - it seems a day can be too.

 

The reasons for last nights dramatic and some what humiliating retreat by the Government seem clear enough. With his coalition partners, the official opposition, and even many of his own MP's against him the whips must have told the PM that he was in grave danger of losing the vote he had called for. This news would not have gone down well in Downing Street, or in the White House one suspects.

 

Now in our system the PM does not constitutionally require the support of the House to initiate military action, but in reality to press ahead against that level of opposition in the current climate and we would today have been talking about 'regime change' not just in Damascus, but in London too.

 

So over to the UN weapon inspectors at the scene of the crime then - a body of men (I understand) specifically not permitted to assign responsibility for a chemical weapon attack, even if they unearth any evidence of one. This one ain't over yet.

Edited 29 August, 2013 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[Sheaf Saint]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23875121

 

President Obama 'sure Syria behind chemical attack'. US President Barack Obama says the US has concluded that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attacks near Damascus.

 

The US has yet to produce the intelligence it says shows Mr Assad's government is guilty of using chemical weapons, and UN weapons inspectors are still investigating inside Syria.

 

 

http://nsnbc.me/2013/08/25/former-jabhat-al-nusrah-member-admits-chemical-weapons-use/

 

Abdola Al-Jaledi, a former high-ranking member of the Jabhat al-Nusrah front has revealed on his Twitter account @abo_almonthir, that his Jabhat al-Nusrah colleagues are in possession of chemical weapons, reports the independent Syrian Dampress Online Journal.

 

A former member of the al-Qaeda associated, foreign-backed Jabhat al-Nusrah front which is fighting the Syrian Armed Forces in an attempt to oust the Syrian government to establish an Islamic Sharia state, has admitted that Jabhat al-Nusrah is in possession of chemical weapons, to be used in attacks in Syria.

[Sheaf Saint]

You may all find this interesting as well. Testimony from a US General from 2007 that Bush and his neo-cons planned to attack Syria as far back as 2001...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha1rEhovONU

[Seaford Saint]

That's one way of looking at it, although perhaps you should turn that on its head. Maybe if you have considered many of my points seriously in the past, you should be more open to some of the most outlandish stuff I suggest.

 

As I said before, we all live in an Anglo-American bubble. The propaganda currently being spouted on what are supposed to be impartial news channels is amazing. Further, I know that any time I discuss inflammatory issues that affect issues in that bubble, particularly when the emotional angle has been stoked, I'm going to catch a load of crap for expressing those opinions. So be it.

 

Outside of our bubble, such ideas are openly discussed. The main difference is that those discussing them aren't instantly labelled crackpots. If I had to characterise the majority of my posts, I'd say that a vast majority of them are fuelled by justifiable distrust of Western motives. We market ourselves as lovers of freedom and transparency, yet put whistleblowers away for 35 years. We condemn other countries for allegedly using chemical weapons, yet the US was fine to use them at Fallujah. Drone strikes cause collateral damage of around 90%.

 

The West trying to use moral authority in lieu of evidence is as funny as it is tragic.

 

Pretty much agree with everything. Why don't the BBC ask about proof that Assad used the weopons? Sadly for the powers that be, too many of us see through this now. To be honest I get angry about accountability. We elect MPs to represent us, but the truth is they don't represent us. I think it was Putin who said that we all know what international law is, but few people abide by it.

[Seaford Saint]

Agreed, we don't know what the US and UK governments know - and others suggesting that they have "no evidence" are being foolish, quite frankly. The "there-is-no- evidence" line assumes that governments have only the information already publicly available, which, to say the least, is a bit of a stretch. I doubt anyone on Saintsweb has a satellite in geostationary orbit over Syria, but it's not unreasonable to assume that Western governments do, as, in all probability, do the Russians. If they do, might they have the capability to detect heat signatures of missiles fired? I don't know. Can they pinpoint locations very precisely? I don't know. Do governments have other intel - hard to believe not, but I don't know. Governments may choose to share this information, or we'll have to wait for another whistleblower. And it's reasonable to put pressure on politicians to come clean on what that evidence is. But to say categorically "there is no evidence" is absurd.

 

From various briefings in Washington in London, it appears the Obama administration is pinning direct responsibility for the chemical shelling on the notoriously unstable (and now one-legged after an assassination attempt) Maher Assad, Bashar's "enforcer" brother. The attack on the suburbs was in revenge for an unsuccessful assassination attempt on Bashar himself two weeks ago, which left his closest bodyguard dead and Bashar cowering in a mosque. The assassination attempt was mounted by rebels based in the suburbs that were subsequently hit by the chemical weapons. As to the quality of the evidence to back all this up, we wait and see.

 

As for Western governments itching to get rid of Syria, in the Middle East it's fair to say that nothing is so simple - however "obvious" it might appear to be. Nor does the claim of "natural resources" stand up - WHAT natural resources?

 

Finally, the "doing nothing" option is obviously appealing, especially if we falsely convince ourselves, in time-honoured fashion, that xyz "do not have the same respect for life as we do." The problem, though, is now not confined to Syria. The use of chemical weapons poses a much wider threat regionally. The use of chemical weapons (as distinct from biological weapons) has also been banned since 1925, and the only two instances, prior to the Syrian conflict, when that ban has been breached was by Saddam Hussein in the Kurdish town of Halabja and Mussolini in what was then Abyssinia (now Ethiopia). Not even Hitler used them.

 

So the issues of evidence, motive, and consequences are all far more complex than they might appear. Some open, reasoned, open debate by our leading politicians would not go amiss in presenting the case for any action taken - and perhaps in doing so they might construct a response that does more good than harm in a place where far too much harm has already been done.

 

Its clear to me that without intervention Assad will win the civil and the West don't like it. Assad has no reason to use weopons, there is too much evidence suggesting that the rebels used them or that the West via the rebels used them ad a pretext to get involved.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Pretty much agree with everything. Why don't the BBC ask about proof that Assad used the weopons? Sadly for the powers that be, too many of us see through this now. To be honest I get angry about accountability. We elect MPs to represent us, but the truth is they don't represent us. I think it was Putin who said that we all know what international law is, but few people abide by it.

 

Oh I shouldn't be choosing Vladimir Putin as a prime example of moral probity if I was you - one suspects you don't get to be a Lt Colonel in the old KGB without getting your hands dirty.

[pap]

Pretty much agree with everything. Why don't the BBC ask about proof that Assad used the weopons? Sadly for the powers that be, too many of us see through this now. To be honest I get angry about accountability. We elect MPs to represent us, but the truth is they don't represent us. I think it was Putin who said that we all know what international law is, but few people abide by it.

 

I've never been much for representative democracy. Wrote this a while before the AV referendum.

 

http://frigsociety.com/2011/04/14/representative-autocracy/

[pap]

Oh I shouldn't be choosing Vladimir Putin as a prime example of moral probity if I was you - one suspects you don't get to be a Lt Colonel in the old KGB without getting your hands dirty.

 

I think you are going to end up being surprised by just how culturally important the Russians are going to become. They're in the nascent stages of a global propaganda war, as the relatively amateur RT shows, but make no mistake, they are now very much competing for hearts and minds.

 

In a sense, the Russians have got the easiest job of all. All they have to do is sit back and wait for the US to hang themselves on the gallows of their own foreign policy framework.

 

As for Putin himself. A figure of moral probity? Certainly not, but I'd argue that anyone who has made the journey he has, and lived, has a formidable head on their shoulders. Love him or hate him, I at least get the feeling he is his own man, something that could not be said of recent US presidents ( Dubya and Obama, I'm looking at you ).

[alpine_saint]

Soz, forgot to comment on an earlier point.

 

On it making no sense for Assad to delay the Inspectors from getting to the site. Makes a lot of sense to me. It's a contested area that had just seen combat, wasn't fully under his control and was not safe. The first attempt to get out to the weapons resulted in the inspectors coming under unidentified sniper fire, which may support the "not safe" case, but common sense backs it up in any event. Warzones aren't safe.To say that the delay is proof of complicity is also speculation, yet this is the message that is being endlessly repeated on the news.

 

On a related note, I really don't trust that William Hague after this. Thought he was a straight talker at one point. Comes across as a sinister b*ll****ter now. Inaugural Minister of Truth?

 

I've read your last few posts on this thread and have concluded that you are a paid up member of the "Seumas Milne, cherry-pick evidence, make up convoluted theories, so long as its always the fault of the US and its acolytes, chiefly the UK" club.

 

You are such an apologist its nauseating.

 

I get the impression, and commentators this morning in the papers, including those anti-military strikes, are expressing their beliefs that the government side DID make these attacks. There also seems to be some evidence floating about, as Verbal has indicated, but just because no-one takes the time to sit down and explain it to you in words of one syllable, does not mean it doesnt exist. You wouldnt believe it anyway. And I wouldnt want the lives of operatives or methods of gathering intelligence compromised anyway, in case something much, much bigger was missed in the future.

 

Its about time some of you "Stop the War" people grew up and separated "war fatigue" from cases where real action is required.

 

The world cannot stand by and do nothing in the face of illegal and horrendously destructive chemical warfare I suggest some of you read up on how it is to suffer and die at the hands of Sarin, and have a look at the rows of dead Syrian kids.

 

I dont know if a punishment surgical strike is going to help or make matters worse, but doing nothing is not an option. I also wish some other nations would lead the way for once, and think the Russians should be deeply ashamed of their stance.

Edited 29 August, 2013 by alpine_saint

[alpine_saint]

I think you are going to end up being surprised by just how culturally important the Russians are going to become. They're in the nascent stages of a global propaganda war, as the relatively amateur RT shows, but make no mistake, they are now very much competing for hearts and minds.

 

In a sense, the Russians have got the easiest job of all. All they have to do is sit back and wait for the US to hang themselves on the gallows of their own foreign policy framework.

 

As for Putin himself. A figure of moral probity? Certainly not, but I'd argue that anyone who has made the journey he has, and lived, has a formidable head on their shoulders. Love him or hate him, I at least get the feeling he is his own man, something that could not be said of recent US presidents ( Dubya and Obama, I'm looking at you ).

 

FFS, do you work for Pravda ??? I can almost hear the erection....

[hypochondriac]

What does an erection sound like?

[alpine_saint]

What does an erection sound like?

 

[hypochondriac]

 

Lol. Well played.

[pap]

I've read your last few posts on this thread and have concluded that you are a paid up member of the "Seumas Milne, cherry-pick evidence, make up convoluted theories, so long as its always the fault of the US and its acolytes, chiefly the UK" club.

 

You are such an apologist its nauseating.

 

I get the impression, and commentators this morning in the papers, including those anti-military strikes, are expressing their beliefs that the government side DID make these attacks. There also seems to be some evidence floating about, as Verbal has indicated, but just because no-one takes the time to sit down and explain it to you in words of one syllable, does not mean it doesnt exist. You wouldnt believe it anyway. And I wouldnt want the lives of operatives or methods of gathering intelligence compromised anyway, in case something much, much bigger was missed in the future.

 

Its about time some of you "Stop the War" people grew up and separated "war fatigue" from cases where real action is required.

 

The world cannot stand by and do nothing in the face of illegal and horrendously destructive chemical warfare I suggest some of you read up on how it is to suffer and die at the hands of Sarin, and have a look at the rows of dead Syrian kids.

 

I dont know if a punishment surgical strike is going to help or make matters worse, but doing nothing is not an option. I also wish some other nations would lead the way for once, and think the Russians should be deeply ashamed of their stance.

...

Edited 29 August, 2013 by pap