Apparent chemical weapon attacks in Syria

[trousers]

I think those accords are part of the past anyway. Take the Geneva Conventions (note, not Protocol) as an example.

 

Pap, could you be an absolute darling and update Wikipedia for me...

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

[aintforever]

only france has the capability for starters

 

Well these other countries will never get their military up to scratch if we are forever doing their dirty work.

 

When we act as the US's puppy dog for these things we not only waste our money and service people's lives we make ourselves a target for terrorism in the process. The us don't need our military anyway, it is tiny compared to theirs, they want us in for political reasons.

 

As long as Israel seem to have some sort of hold over the US we should think very carefully before jumping in on their side.

[Viking Warrior]

I have enjoyed some of the more knowledgeable posters on here Dubai phil verbal pap . You make some important points . The Middle East is a hotbed of unrest . I have my girlfriends daughter working for the UN in Palestine at present doing teaching as part of a uni placement initiative . It's very interesting to see a very different perspective on the situation over there . Israeli soldiers dancing at a Hamas wedding . Odd but true . While the countries are divided there is a lot of commonality between the actual people . It's a shame the hot heads in charge don't realise that both can live in harmony . A bit like Syria . It's time the hawks stepped back gave peace a chance Assad and the rebels both have a lot to answer for

[Batman]

senior torys called milliband a f***ing C***

 

who says they are out of touch and dont follow public opinion?

if anything, they deserve a pat on the back for that

[Colinjb]

senior torys called milliband a f***ing C***

 

who says they are out of touch and dont follow public opinion?

if anything, they deserve a pat on the back for that

 

If we hadn't already guessed, the 'man' has no integrity.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I've just heard on the radio the US Secretary of State John Kerry describe France (of all countries) as America's quote: 'Oldest Ally' unquote. Now only a passing acquaintance with the history of the US Revolutionary War is needed to show that that is technically a perfectly accurate description of course, but surely we need not read to closely 'between the lines' to see the true target of that cutting remark. I strongly suspect that neither Downing Street, the Foreign Office, or the Ministry of Defence for that matter will be especially happy workplaces tonight.

 

Make no mistake, our reputation in the US has been damaged by this vote. One consequence of that is that the next time we go to the US asking for their help with something we might not receive quite the same level of friendly cooperation we might have just yesterday. But Great Britain ultimately cannot and should not be the de facto 51st State of the US. The proper duty of our Government and Parliament must be to reflect the views of the people who elected it and pursue a course of action that it feels (rightly or wrongly) is in our national interest.

 

It seems to me that the shared history and similarity of world view that forms the foundation of the alliance between the two great English speaking nations of the world still remains. So I have little doubt that the damage done will be patched over (not for the first time by the way) and something like normal transatlantic relations will soon be resumed. The repaired relationship may not be quite as 'special' as it once was however.

[Verbal]

It won't impact us any more than any of the other 200 odd countries. Why are we so special that we feel the need to be the World's police?

 

This really is so many miles from the truth. Just in my travels I've encountered Indian troops in Haiti, Ghanian, Kenyan, Nigerian and South African troops in Sierra Leone, New Zealand troops in East Timor, French in Mali, and any number of nationalities in the Palestinian refugee camps in Amman.

 

As for the "body bags" argument elsewhere on here, it's also quite untrue that we've historically been the only ones stepping into danger zones. Here - to give just one example - is a "top 20" of troop deaths by nationality on UN peacekeeping duties between 1948 and 2013:

 

India 154

Nigeria 139

Pakistan 133

Ghana 131

Canada 121

Bangladesh 113

France 109

UK 103

Ireland 90

Ethiopia 82

Zambia 74

USA 71

Nepal 69

Sweden 67

Jordan 56

Denmark 50

Kenya 50

Fiji 49

Senegal 49

Poland 48

 

As you see, we're far from "special".

[Seaford Saint]

http://www.storyleak.com/ron-paul-syria-chemical-attack-a-flase-flag/

 

Ron Paul......

[aintforever]

This really is so many miles from the truth. Just in my travels I've encountered Indian troops in Haiti, Ghanian, Kenyan, Nigerian and South African troops in Sierra Leone, New Zealand troops in East Timor, French in Mali, and any number of nationalities in the Palestinian refugee camps in Amman.

 

As for the "body bags" argument elsewhere on here, it's also quite untrue that we've historically been the only ones stepping into danger zones. Here - to give just one example - is a "top 20" of troop deaths by nationality on UN peacekeeping duties between 1948 and 2013:

 

India 154

Nigeria 139

Pakistan 133

Ghana 131

Canada 121

Bangladesh 113

France 109

UK 103

Ireland 90

Ethiopia 82

Zambia 74

USA 71

Nepal 69

Sweden 67

Jordan 56

Denmark 50

Kenya 50

Fiji 49

Senegal 49

Poland 48

 

As you see, we're far from "special".

 

What a load of nonsense, 444 UK soldiers have died in Afganistan alone. Meaning in that war alone more UK servicemen have died than from India, Nigeria and Pakistan combined over the last 65 years.

 

Like i said, more than our fair share by a mile.

Edited 30 August, 2013 by aintforever

[dubai_phil]

What a load of nonsense, 444 UK soldiers have died in Afganistan alone. Meaning in that war alone more UK servicemen have died than from India, Nigeria and Pakistan combined over the last 65 years.

 

Like i said, more than our fair share by a mile.

 

READ the post before you make your self look stupid

a "top 20" of troop deaths by nationality on UN peacekeeping duties between 1948 and 2013:

 

Afghanistan was NOT a UN Mission

[Seaford Saint]

I have enjoyed some of the more knowledgeable posters on here Dubai phil verbal pap . You make some important points . The Middle East is a hotbed of unrest . I have my girlfriends daughter working for the UN in Palestine at present doing teaching as part of a uni placement initiative . It's very interesting to see a very different perspective on the situation over there . Israeli soldiers dancing at a Hamas wedding . Odd but true . While the countries are divided there is a lot of commonality between the actual people . It's a shame the hot heads in charge don't realise that both can live in harmony . A bit like Syria . It's time the hawks stepped back gave peace a chance Assad and the rebels both have a lot to answer

 

for

 

 

I was surprised to read how many Israelis would like Palestine to have it's own state etc. it is not the image painted by the media but then again the BBC just used a photo taken in Iraq in 2003 to illustrate the situation in Syria.

[aintforever]

READ the post before you make your self look stupid

 

 

Afghanistan was NOT a UN Mission

 

What difference does that make? The war in Afganistan was to stop a Worldwide terrorist threat, we are still doing the dirty work, it makes no difference if it was not a UN mission.

Edited 30 August, 2013 by aintforever

[Jonnyboy]

senior torys called milliband a f***ing C***

 

who says they are out of touch and dont follow public opinion?

if anything, they deserve a pat on the back for that

 

The irony.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Personally, I reckon Miliband was electioneering. He felt the public mood and decided that he wasn't going to be another Labour warmonger. The party has only just started to get back all the people who abandoned it over the issue of Iraq. Make no mistake; Cameron was itching for action. Miliband did the right thing for the wrong reasons. Whatever. I'll take it.

 

There's no reckon about it mate.

 

He is 100% playing politics out of it. Personally I find this absolutely abhorrent.

 

I know I have been critical of lefties and their blood lust for maggie in the past, and I totally accept this makes me a hypocrite - but being honest - I 100% wish bad things on ed as a result of his actions.

 

Trying to make political capital out of this, whilst so many suffer in such a barbaric way makes me feel physically sick.

 

For me, he will always be viewed as an absolute scumbag. I genuinely hope he suffers in vain as much as the innocent Syrians.

[aintforever]

Milliband will do well out of this, I think there is little public support for getting involved in another war.

 

I have gained a little more faith in our democratic system after what has happened this week.

Edited 30 August, 2013 by aintforever

[Colinjb]

Milliband will do well out of this, I think there is little public support for getting involved in another war.

 

I have gained a little more faith in our democratic system after what has happened this week.

 

If he does then it says a lot for our general public.

 

Milliband went against his own stated desire for purely political benefit in the context of Syrian lives being lost. That individual is slime of the highest order, if he becomes prime minister I will emigrate.

[Jonnyboy]

There's no reckon about it mate.

 

He is 100% playing politics out of it. Personally I find this absolutely abhorrent.

 

I know I have been critical of lefties and their blood lust for maggie in the past, and I totally accept this makes me a hypocrite - but being honest - I 100% wish bad things on ed as a result of his actions.

 

Trying to make political capital out of this, whilst so many suffer in such a barbaric way makes me feel physically sick.

 

For me, he will always be viewed as an absolute scumbag. I genuinely hope he suffers in vain as much as the innocent Syrians.

 

Sounds like you've fallen for all the guff coming from the pro-war MPs who are trying to make political capital against Milliband in todays articles.

[Viking Warrior]

Batman. It doesn't need a bunch of senior to call milliband a fxxxking cxxx . He is a f***ing c***

[Seaford Saint]

http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/

 

Some fascinating stuff on this blog....

[dubai_phil]

http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/

 

Some fascinating stuff on this blog....

 

ESPECIALLY this

 

"What happens then?" asks Asma. "Does Israel then grab a bigger part of Syria? Do Qatar and Saudi Arabia then get their oil pipeline through Syria?"

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Sounds like you've fallen for all the guff coming from the pro-war MPs who are trying to make political capital against Milliband in todays articles.

 

Yeah mate.

 

It was them calling for Cameron's head, who I actually for was very statesman like in defeat, whilst still in the house moments after the vote yeah?

 

And it definitely wasn't EM talking about Cameron's authority 5 minutes later.

 

This is not about either of them, it's about those poor people in Syria who are suffering in the most inhumane way.

[saintbletch]

I think that if any political damage has been done, it's Cameron that has suffered.

 

In my view it's pretty difficult to damage Miliband's prospects of taking Labour into power. He sort of does that himself most of the time.

 

But let's imagine that this strike from the Franco-US partnership either doesn't happen quickly, or it doesn't stop at a single strike. In the massive press interest that will ensue, how can Cameron express any views on this without himself looking impotent?

 

He'll presumably be supportive, but he'll struggle to deliver that message without the press trying to portray him as wistful and powerless. He'll do well to avoid being depicted as desperately wanting the country to do one thing, but not actually been able to control the foreign policy of the country for which he is supposed to be the head of the executive government.

 

It'll be like Obama and Hollande are on the couch, taking it in turns to give it to Sam Cam, while Dave is sat in the armchair watching, but not wanting to watch, mumbling to himself that he only wished that he could still summon the blood himself.

 

Well, it is to me anyway.

[aintforever]

If he does then it says a lot for our general public.

 

Milliband went against his own stated desire for purely political benefit in the context of Syrian lives being lost. That individual is slime of the highest order, if he becomes prime minister I will emigrate.

 

I couldn't care less if Milliband was electioneering, I would rather our politicians pander to the will of the British public that pander to the Yanks or the defence/oil industry. That is what democracy is all about, people vote for parties who share their point of view.

 

You are naive if you think Cameron gives a monkeys about lives in Syria. The Tories stance is based on 1 - Keeping the USA happy and 2 - Arms contracts.

 

If anything further happens in Syria it's the UN's responsibility, if there is clear evidence and a UN mandate I expect the British people will back action. Going in without this is daft as Iraq showed.

[Colinjb]

I couldn't care less if Milliband was electioneering, I would rather our politicians pander to the will of the British public that pander to the Yanks or the defence/oil industry. That is what democracy is all about, people vote for parties who share their point of view.

 

You are naive if you think Cameron gives a monkeys about lives in Syria. The Tories stance is based on 1 - Keeping the USA happy and 2 - Arms contracts.

 

If anything further happens in Syria it's the UN's responsibility, if there is clear evidence and a UN mandate I expect the British people will back action. Going in without this is daft as Iraq showed.

 

Oh, I am in no way in a position where I think that one side is holier then thou and the other is evil, yes, they are all self interested.

 

Your point about democracy is right, and the prime minister acquiesced to the will of the house in good grace, stuck to his belief in the course of action and accepted the will of the house. It was served.

 

Nonetheless it was fueled by a man who frankly shouldn't have the role of leader of the opposition in the first place. Someone who should never in a million years be an election result away from office. I'm sure that my own personal politics are obvious in what I say, but I can respect Labour leaders if they have conviction, integrity and belief in their course of action. Ed Milliband is nothing but a devious slimeball.

Edited 31 August, 2013 by Colinjb

[Jonnyboy]

I applaud Milliband for saying lets wait to see what the weapons inpectors report. No reason why we cant get involved a few weeks or months down the line through the UN.

[Jonnyboy]

...

[dubai_phil]

I applaud Milliband for saying lets wait to see what the weapons inpectors report. No reason why we cant get involved a few weeks or months down the line through the UN.

 

Yes, but the point is that there were a signinificant number of Amendments made to the original Call for a Vote. They were made by Ed.

 

They included this line.

 

But then Ed went and voted against his OWN resolution.

 

Nobody comes out of this well.

 

A Plague on ALL their houses for trying to turn the Murder of Children into "Party Political Positioning" "Leverage" Special Relations, or Arms Contracts.

 

The Vote is said to show Democracy at it's best (ie the Will of The People). Does it Hell, it shows Democracy at it's worst - ie what decision can I take that gives ME the best chance of staying on the Gravy Train.

[hypochondriac]

I applaud Milliband for saying lets wait to see what the weapons inpectors report. No reason why we cant get involved a few weeks or months down the line through the UN.

 

Yes I applaud him for that. I then denounce him for changing his mind a number if times and then doing not what he thought was best for Syria but what he thought would be most politically advantageous. Vile man.

[aintforever]

David Cameron: “It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly.”

 

A triumph for democracy. Plain and simple.

 

Time for he Arab League to sort their own rancid mess out.

[Verbal]

What difference does that make? The war in Afganistan was to stop a Worldwide terrorist threat, we are still doing the dirty work, it makes no difference if it was not a UN mission.

 

This is very confused, and mostly untrue. After 9/11, The war in Afghanistan was one fought by proxy, with the West, and the Americans in particular, relying largely on the Afghan Northern Alliance as front-line troops. By the time British troops arrived in Afghanistan, and even later in Helmand Province, the source of the “worldwide terrorist threat” was long gone. British troops casualties were entirely – or almost entirely – at the hands of the Afghans, and mostly the Taliban. The Taliban are many things, most of them bad – but they are not international terrorists. They are ethnic Pashtuns fighting what they see as a national-religious war against invaders – a tradition in Afghanistan that goes back centuries. They are NOT and never have been Al Qaeda, which had largely been driven out of Afghanistan by early 2002.

 

So there is a separate and quite distinct argument to be had about how the hell the British found themselves in Helmand, but it’s got nothing to do with any supposedly unique political impulse to police remote parts of the world, nor was Helmand ever a fight against “international terrorism”.

 

With regard to the UN fatalities league table, I was responding you your own argument that Britain thinks of itself as “special” in its need to be the world’s police. This is simply not true. As crude a measure as it is of other countries’ international obligations, that league table shows that the UK, per capita, isn’t even particularly high up the list on what is specifically an international policing force.

 

But I stress (I thought it was obvious but evidently not) the UN peacekeeping force is only one of many international and regional commitments other countries have been involved in (the French in Mali, the Australians in East Timor, the Vietnamese in removing Pol Pot, etc).

 

By all means let’s have a debate about what, if any, action to take in Syria, but let’s not base it on the arrogant presupposition that Britain is doing something that no other country does.

 

On another point about “mission creep”, there is, firstly, nothing “inevitable” about military action of a particular kind leading inexorably to mission creep. The French have managed their specific objectives very well, and with a great deal of popularity locally, in northern Mali, and have mostly withdrawn to be replaced by a large UN peacekeeping force of 12,500 troops and police officers drawn mostly from other African states. Even Blair managed some military interventions without mission creep – in East Timor using Gurkhas and special forces in 1999 and Sierra Leone in 2000.

 

Secondly, no one should underestimate the HUGE loss of political capital that has followed the Iraq war and, to a lesser extent, Libya. Even viewed at its most cynical, no leading politician, in the near future, is going to risk causing such awful damage to their own prospects – and remember, Cameron has an election to fight in only a year or more’s time. And this loss of political capital was, after all, the reason the Parliamentary vote went the way it did.

 

But I repeat: I think the chances of mission creep in Syria are as close to zero as it's possible to be. Mission creep tends to happen when quite high troops numbers are present on the ground (American “advisors” in Vietnam, to quote the worst example). No British politician – or American one for that matter – is going to risk putting ground troops into Syria. The regional politics of what used to be called the Levant are so devilishly complex, and forever poised on a teetering knife-edge that any large scale military intervention with ground troops is going to make Iraq look like a summer picnic.

 

What’s been missed in all the noise about what to do in Syria is the simple fact that the positions advocated by Obama, Cameron and Miliband all have one thing in common: they are espousing a doctrine first set out by Tony Blair during the Kosovo war. It is known as the “Blair Doctrine”, or, to give it its full name, the “Doctrine of International Community”. At its heart was the motive for intervention: humanitarian need. It was supposed to be a bulwark against Bush’s scattergun approach to intervention, which often came down to regime change. (Of course, Blair broke the terms of his own doctrine in his supine behaviour once Bush made it plain he was invading Iraq come what may).

 

 

There were, said Blair “five rules” for intervention: be sure of the evidence; exhaust all other options first; ask if military operations can be “sensibly” undertaken; prepare an exit strategy; and clearly identify whether your own national interests are involved.

 

Miliband’s amendment comes closest to following this, but Cameron’s resolution was not far off.

 

I’d suggest that on Blair’s own rules, we’re not at the point here military intervention could be authorised – but with the UN inspectors having now departed Syria, humanitarian intervention following these rules is at least arguable.

 

Of course, whether you agree with the doctrine itself is another matter...

[aintforever]

I never once said Britain was the only country to 'police' the world, more that we have done more than our fair share.

 

You gloss over the Afgan war but fact is it was to stop a worldwide terrorist threat (the Taliban being the regime that harboured Al Qaeda), France (just one example of a country not wanting to get their hands dirty) agree with the cause and have 550 troops out there, we have 9,000.

[alpine_saint]

I've just heard on the radio the US Secretary of State John Kerry describe France (of all countries) as America's quote: 'Oldest Ally' unquote. Now only a passing acquaintance with the history of the US Revolutionary War is needed to show that that is technically a perfectly accurate description of course, but surely we need not read to closely 'between the lines' to see the true target of that cutting remark. I strongly suspect that neither Downing Street, the Foreign Office, or the Ministry of Defence for that matter will be especially happy workplaces tonight.

 

Make no mistake, our reputation in the US has been damaged by this vote. One consequence of that is that the next time we go to the US asking for their help with something we might not receive quite the same level of friendly cooperation we might have just yesterday. But Great Britain ultimately cannot and should not be the de facto 51st State of the US. The proper duty of our Government and Parliament must be to reflect the views of the people who elected it and pursue a course of action that it feels (rightly or wrongly) is in our national interest.

 

It seems to me that the shared history and similarity of world view that forms the foundation of the alliance between the two great English speaking nations of the world still remains. So I have little doubt that the damage done will be patched over (not for the first time by the way) and something like normal transatlantic relations will soon be resumed. The repaired relationship may not be quite as 'special' as it once was however.

 

Aw, who f**king cares anymore ?

 

Flirting with the Frogs the way they are just goes to show what a bunch of fair-weather exploitative selfish tarts the Americans are.

Kerry called the Falklands "The Malvinas" a couple of months ago and refused to recognise the referendum result, and he didnt give a flying f**k about the offence he caused over here.

Further back than that, when Guatemala were threatening British Honduras in 1972 the US let them get on with it.

 

Also the US legal system are bleeding BP dry into bankruptcy whilst they let off Exxon for the Valdez leak, and Obama sits there an does nothing.

The relationship is a one-way street - when it suits them.

 

F**k 'em. We need decide if we are going to act like a nation our size, or to continue punching above our weight in which case we should look for other alliances, like our Commonwealth friends who we have systematically neglected for the best part of the last 40 years due to EU obligations.

[Viking Warrior]

Alpine . Please watch your comments not only are they offensive but boarding on racism . Please retract your comments

 

what a bunch of fair-weather exploitative selfish tarts the Americans are.

 

I have American relatives . So please retract your statements or amend accordingly . If not i will ask the mods to intervene .

[buctootim]

Alpine . Please watch your comments not only are they offensive but boarding on racism . Please retract your comments

 

what a bunch of fair-weather exploitative selfish tarts the Americans are.

 

I have American relatives . So please retract your statements or amend accordingly . If not i will ask the mods to intervene .

 

Odd post. US foreign policy has always been US interests first, last and always - they always do what benefits them. You will find few Americans who disagree or even think that is wrong.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Interesting if true....

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/breaking-news-rebels-admit-gas-attack-result-of-mishandling-chemical-weapons

[aintforever]

Alpine . Please watch your comments not only are they offensive but boarding on racism . Please retract your comments

 

what a bunch of fair-weather exploitative selfish tarts the Americans are.

 

I have American relatives . So please retract your statements or amend accordingly . If not i will ask the mods to intervene .

 

Oh come on alpine is spot on, it wasn't long ago the Yanks were renaming French Fries Freedom Fries because they hated them so much.

 

What was it Stormin Norman said? "Going to war without France is like going duck hunting without an accordion."

 

 

...now they are best buddies because we wont help start world war three on the back of some youtube clips.

[andysstuff]

Interesting if true....

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/breaking-news-rebels-admit-gas-attack-result-of-mishandling-chemical-weapons

 

Been snippets of this for days, and was mentioned at the UN press conference, but I didn't catch the answer. Sounds as likely as Assad's brother using them in a fit of pique.

 

Muddier and muddier.

[alpine_saint]

Alpine . Please watch your comments not only are they offensive but boarding on racism . Please retract your comments

 

what a bunch of fair-weather exploitative selfish tarts the Americans are.

 

I have American relatives . So please retract your statements or amend accordingly . If not i will ask the mods to intervene .

 

My paternal grandfather is also American. I'll call them what I f**king want. Especially if its true.

 

I actually think VW is trying to be funny here, since the only slightly dubious comment I made was what I called the French.

[alpine_saint]

Oh come on alpine is spot on, it wasn't long ago the Yanks were renaming French Fries Freedom Fries because they hated them so much.

 

What was it Stormin Norman said? "Going to war without France is like going duck hunting without an accordion."

 

 

...now they are best buddies because we wont help start world war three on the back of some youtube clips.

 

There is also anecdotal evidence that the French were tipping off the Serbians during the Balkan war about US air patrols and attacks. This was vaguely alluded to in the film "Behind Enemy Lines" starring Gene Hackman and Owen Wilson.

[Horley CTFC Saint]

It beggars belief that in the 21st century with the technology we have at our disposal we are still talking about fighting wars.

 

If you cut the head off a snake it dies......

[Viking Warrior]

Alpine . If you want to call them want you want . Go ahead because that confirms to me that i can now call you what I want . So don't go running to the mods when you don't like what others say about you,

[alpine_saint]

Alpine . If you want to call them want you want . Go ahead because that confirms to me that i can now call you what I want . So don't go running to the mods when you don't like what others say about you,

 

Despite what the urban legend says round here, I rarely report stuff to the mods.

 

So, go ahead and do your worst. I'm shaking in my boots here...

[Viking Warrior]

Alpine . You do report stuff to the mods however infrequent it is . By all means post your comments but at least try and be more specific with your comments instead of tarnishing your comments to include all Americans etc . I'm not happy with the earlier comments but its clear you don't give a toss who you offend or use abusive language to your a total numpty .

 

I wonder if our American supporters on here have any comments re you earlier post . You seem to know a lot about everything but over the years i have come to realise you know very little about anything

Edited 1 September, 2013 by Viking Warrior

[Sheaf Saint]

Interesting piece from Robert Fisk in today's Independent....

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iran-not-syria-is-the-wests-real-target-8789506.html

 

Iran, not Syria, is the West's real target

Iran is ever more deeply involved in protecting the Syrian government. Thus a victory for Bashar is a victory for Iran. And Iranian victories cannot be tolerated by the West

[aintforever]

Interesting piece from Robert Fisk in today's Independent....

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iran-not-syria-is-the-wests-real-target-8789506.html

 

Fisk has usually got a good grasp of things in the Middle East, that article does ring true. I expect the only 'game changer' is the involvement of Hezbollah and the fact that Assad is winning.

[bridge too far]

Here's a look at the information being peddled on both sides of the argument

 

http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/09/01/which-syrian-chemical-attack-account-is-more-credible/

[pap]

Pap, could you be an absolute darling and update Wikipedia for me...

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

 

trousers, me ol' mucker. I've been very busy this weekend. Just wanted to address this. I was referring to something completely different than your point, hence the 'not'. Wasn't trying to suggest you'd mixed them up - was just trying to stress that I wasn't talking about the same thing as you.

 

Not very successfully, it'd seem

[Verbal]

Here's a look at the information being peddled on both sides of the argument

 

http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/09/01/which-syrian-chemical-attack-account-is-more-credible/

 

Despite it's claim to "fairness" it's not a particularly balanced or well researched piece. With regard to the Mint Press News article, it fails to mention that they had originally pretended that Dale Gavlak, the AP freelance, had been one of reporters on the scene in Ghouta. She hadn't, and they were forced into a retraction. So while the "Fair" article says "Mint are honest in the limits of their knowledge," that is not actually true. They're also wrong in stating that the 24-year-old owner of the company is Palestinian in origin, because her father is from a well-known Jordanian tribe; and she has refused to name any of the financial backers of her one-year-old Minnesota company, despite her call for "transparency". The Reporter (Yahya Ababneh) they do claim was on the scene in Ghouta was another 24-year-old Jordanian currently doing an MA in journalism in Amman (or possibly Petra). It's entirely possible that he scored a reporting coup in gaining the information he did, but he may just as easily have been duped.

 

The problem is that online sites like "Fair", without any proper journalistic resources of their own, will have no better picture than we do of what is true and what is not, in an information war that has become as intense as it is confusing.

 

This is similar to the murkiness surrounding the Telegraph report of an alleged meeting between Putin and Prince Bandar, head of Saudi intelligence, in which the latter is supposed to have said that as he controlled the Chechen rebels he would tell them to call off any attacks on Russian targets during the winter Olympics provided Putin withdrew his support from Assad. That article was written by a journalist who's previously claimed that the Oklahoma bombing was a "false flag" operation conducted by the US government and that Timothy McVeigh was a patsy. The sources for his Bandar story were the Russian FSB (ex-KGB), who leaked the bare bones of the story, and Hezbollah, who provided the detailed quotes from it.

 

So there's much to be cautious about here.

 

It's certainly the case, though, that Kerry has singularly failed so far to offer real, hard evidence for his claim that there's conclusive proof of the source of the bombing.

 

Personally, I'd prefer to await the findings of the UN inspectors' report.

[Seaford Saint]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gNDw4rDG5vg

 

This is David Icke's take on Syria....it's very interesting indeed.

[pap]

Le Figaro have a world exclusive interview with Assad. Chrome does a manful enough job of translation although my French is 22 years neglected.

 

http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2013/09/02/01003-20130902ARTFIG00532-la-mise-en-garde-d-el-assad-a-la-france.php

 

Big point. The Middle East is a powder keg, and that action in Syria could trigger a regional war.

 

Not sure he's far wrong there. If the West goes into Syria, Iran might feel it sensible to throw in with them. Fairly obvious that conflict is heading there anyway, why not engage with an ally in tow?