ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

[Minusorange]

True, but there is also the fact that who ever has used the weapons has broken international law. If there is no punishment that sends a signal to every dictator that they can use these weapons with inpunity. There has to be a price/consequence. If not then this will happen again and again just like it has in Syria already. There should have been concentrated action when the OPCW and UN report concluded that Assad had used chemical weapons.

There is also evidence that the chemical weapons used in 2013, which the OPCW has samples of match the samples taken from two other attacks

Source:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...to-largest-sarin-attack-sources-idUSKBN1FJ0MG

which is pretty damming considering it comes from an independent body, but it does back up what the west has said previously and proves the Syrian and Russian narative was wrong.

The thing is, Assad wasn't gassing anybody until we destabilised the region, you say there has to be a price to be consequence but why should any one adhere to the rules when it's the rule makers which are the cause of all this trouble ? You can't be preaching to other nations about moral standards on "ethical murder" (which doesn't exist) while you're covertly trying to cause civil wars in those same nations because you don't like who's in charge.

It's the double standards that **** me off about it all

When Saddam was our friend and he was fighting the Iranians and he used chemical weapons in Halabja our response was

We believe it better to maintain a dialogue with others if we want to influence their actions. Punitive measures such as unilateral sanctions would not be effective in changing Iraq's behaviour over chemical weapons, and would damage British interests to no avail

Instead we let him stay in power until he no longer served British and US interests and let his execution be aired publicly

So just how can standards be applied when we selectively cherry pick who those standards apply to whilst being the catalyst most of the time for eventual use of such heinous murder methods ?

I think it's ****** what's happening in Syria, just like I think it's ****** how we played our part in destroying Iraq & Libya, I don't think however it's worth starting a world war with Russia over when it's partially our fault all this happening

 

[Andy_82]

The thing is, Assad wasn't gassing anybody until we destabilised the region, you say there has to be a price to be consequence but why should any one adhere to the rules when it's the rule makers which are the cause of all this trouble ? You can't be preaching to other nations about moral standards on "ethical murder" (which doesn't exist) while you're covertly trying to cause civil wars in those same nations because you don't like who's in charge.

It's the double standards that **** me off about it all

When Saddam was our friend and he was fighting the Iranians and he used chemical weapons in Halabja our response was

Instead we let him stay in power until he no longer served British and US interests and let his execution be aired publicly

So just how can standards be applied when we selectively cherry pick who those standards apply to whilst being the catalyst most of the time for eventual use of such heinous murder methods ?

I think it's ****** what's happening in Syria, just like I think it's ****** how we played our part in destroying Iraq & Libya, I don't think however it's worth starting a world war with Russia over when it's partially our fault all this happening

One thing, nowhere have i condoned anything the west has done reguarding the middle east. But it comes down to this, if states can break the rules without consequence, then they may as well not exist and anything goes. Which means those with the most military power win. At some point a line has to be drawn and EVERYONE stick to international law, with serious, meaningful consequences for those who dont and without exceptions.

 

[RoboCod]

I think given that we've already had confirmed chemical attacks in the past and given that the rebels don't have airpower, only the regime... then a helicopter dropping chemical weapons is thanks to the Syrian government.

You could present all the evidence you like about things like that, it would still be regarded as false flag by some.

Bit of a difference between criticising views vs being outright insulting which you unfortunately have a habit of resorting to when you run out of anything remotely intelligent to say.

On the contrary, it's actually difficult to hold intelligent debate with a bunch of people who have this juvenile rosy view on the world and the political games that they feel shouldnt be played. The only ones who appear to be "outraged" here are the likes of yourself with comments like "oh we were sadams friend until we didn't need him!". Get a grip, otherwise remove yourself from your oil rich lifestyle and go and live in a cave. There's the hypocrisy here.

 

[Dis86]

I do t know who this minusorange is but...brilliant. proper shill account.

"Assad wasn't gassing anyone until the West intervened".

Oh that's ok then. Obviously not his fault. He should just get on with it.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

You could present all the evidence you like about things like that, it would still be regarded as false flag by some.



On the contrary, it's actually difficult to hold intelligent debate with a bunch of people who have this juvenile rosy view on the world and the political games that they feel shouldnt be played. The only ones who appear to be "outraged" here are the likes of yourself with comments like "oh we were sadams friend until we didn't need him!". Get a grip, otherwise remove yourself from your oil rich lifestyle and go and live in a cave. There's the hypocrisy here.

BUT HER EMAIILS 38 PERCENT GUT NOISE THANK YOU WE

 

[ubersonic]

Ok, so now the white helmets are being labelled baby killers. This thread keeps hitting new lows!

Back in 2016 when the mannequin challenge was all the rage they made a Youtube video for it, since then various conspiracy nuts/truthers keep reposting it on Facebook as "evidence" of them faking chemical attacks

How is the OPCW impartially investigating and presenting the facts to the UN NOT impartial?

Because they are also supposed to determine who was responsible if possible and if that job is transferred from them to the UN then it removes the impartiality (not to mention makes the whole process pointless as Russia can just veto and motion to name the guilty party/parties).

 

[Johno please?]

The thing is, Assad wasn't gassing anybody until we destabilised the region, you say there has to be a price to be consequence but why should any one adhere to the rules when it's the rule makers which are the cause of all this trouble ? You can't be preaching to other nations about moral standards on "ethical murder" (which doesn't exist) while you're covertly trying to cause civil wars in those same nations because you don't like who's in charge.

It's the double standards that **** me off about it all

When Saddam was our friend and he was fighting the Iranians and he used chemical weapons in Halabja our response was

Instead we let him stay in power until he no longer served British and US interests and let his execution be aired publicly

So just how can standards be applied when we selectively cherry pick who those standards apply to whilst being the catalyst most of the time for eventual use of such heinous murder methods ?

I think it's ****** what's happening in Syria, just like I think it's ****** how we played our part in destroying Iraq & Libya, I don't think however it's worth starting a world war with Russia over when it's partially our fault all this happening

The myth is that it was "stable" I don't think years of mass graves, torture, war with iran and kuwait was stable. You could obviously argue it was "more stable".

The worst crime was leaving him in power in the early 90s and telling Iraqis, "go on, rise up and overthrow him" at least we righted that wrong in 2003.

As for Assad, well its funny that so many people who criticise syrian rule end up dead isnt it....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon_bombings_and_assassinations_(2004–present)


If you want to talk about double standards....

 

[Mr Jack]

Looks like May is preparing to commit the UK without a parliamentary debate or vote. Her contempt for Parliament is appalling.

 

[sityeuropa]

Looks like May is preparing to commit the UK without a parliamentary debate or vote. Her contempt for Parliament is appalling.

I mean how hard is it to check out a few forums and comments to gauge public opinion and realise you're so wrong. Why are all politicians complete idiots when it come to this.

 

[Chris Wilson]

Looks like May is preparing to commit the UK without a parliamentary debate or vote. Her contempt for Parliament is appalling.

Given so many of the MP's (not to mention the Speaker's) morality it's somewhat understandable though

 

[Freakbro]

I mean how hard is it to check out a few forums and comments to gauge public opinion and realise you're so wrong. Why are all politicians complete idiots when it come to this.

Why should she care what public opinion is about the issue, there's no election close by?

I think it's been proved quite well recently that the Public havent got a clue what is best for them anyway

If she is willing to bypass Parliaments opinion then she certainly doesn't care about the Plebs opinion.

 

[Felon]

In that Hitchens clip, he says what I was trying to get across a few pages ago, (albeit a lot better than me)

In that, when we don't intervene - people get massacred, when we do intervene there's an outcry (because of some historical problem), when we stand back and let the UN or some other official body "do it's thing" with the best intentions - the criminals simply burn up the time, use all the stalling tactics in the world, play silly games and do everything in their power to mess the whole thing up, then commit a massacre anyway...

 

[h4rm0ny]

The law on it is murky. It's only illegal if its intentionally used as a weapon. If its used passively.for smoke and 'happens' to harm someone then that's just fine. I don't think anyone proved Israel used it as a weapon and obviously they went with the smokescreen defence.

Well, I consider it proven, it's just never been proven in a court of law. They have white phosphorous artillery shells and have certainly used these as weapons. And over civilian areas leading to civilian deaths and horrific injuries. I'm sure you well know that lack of conviction =/= lack of crime.

​

(this is actually high up but "wedges" can still reach the ground and it's interesting to see what they look like in the air).

WARNING: PHOTOS OF INJURIES. GRAPHIC AND DISTRESSING.

Spoiler

I include the injury photos because I think it's important people remember just how horrific what we're talking about really is. It's not just some argument on the Internet. If we go to war with Syria there will be a lot more such photos.

The relevance of all this? Perhaps only to show the stark difference between unwillingness to even investigate widely known crimes yet to immediately pronounce confidently on the guilt of ones not yet even investigated.​

 

[Mr Jack]

Given so many of the MP's (not to mention the Speaker's) morality it's somewhat understandable though

No, it's not. Not liking Parliament is not an excuse to bypass it. I do not support mandatory Parliamentary approval for action because it is conceivable that urgent action may be needed (invasion, etc.) but this is not such a case. There is neither need not advantage to going off halfcocked.

 

[doodah]

I have to actively Google Theresa May these days to see her in the news - she must be desperate for a bump in PR.

 

[h4rm0ny]

All you've done for the last few pages is harp on about war being bad. What else are we supposed to think?

If you're going to get so upset when your views are criticised then perhaps keep them to yourself.

IF there is a poster here you're not interested in reading, then skip their posts which would cost you minimal effort. Don't try to stop them talking so the rest of us can't hear.

Bit of a difference between criticising views vs being outright insulting which you unfortunately have a habit of resorting to when you run out of anything remotely intelligent to say.

I haven't once said war is bad (even if I do disagree with humans killing humans I'm under no hippy illusions about it. It's in our nature having only had peace on this planet for 8% of the last 3,400 years), I've been highlighting the utter hypocrisy and double standards of what is happening right now.

Makes no difference if Assad drops 1000lbs of bombs or uses chemicals on rebels and the civilians they hold captive or if the rebels did it themselves, they're all still dead just because chemicals were used doesn't make them more dead and it's absolutely ******* stupid to pretend to be outraged just because they died in a way you and the international community deem not acceptable to die as if there's a good and bad way to die and certainly not worth the potential conflict against Russia, Iran and China (China have said they'll back up Russia)

There's another important distinction between Sarin gas and cruise missiles. The former can be produced and deployed quite easily by small players and is difficult for the top dogs to counter. Whereas cruise missiles and air supremacy require you to be the top dog. Essentially there's an element of "My weapons are moral, yours are not" to this. You can bet that if Syria had the technical superiority and we were at war with them, our government would countenance cheaply produced chemical weapons against Syria. It's the person with the gun declaring knives are illegal.

 

[Freakbro]

IF there is a poster here you're not interested in reading, then skip their posts which would cost you minimal effort. Don't try to stop them talking so the rest of us can't hear.

Yea, but he does get a bit hysterically ranty and his point gets lost in an incoherent babble. Hell, he even had a go at yourself (who is firmly on side with his viewpoint) just because you pointed out the facts about WP....which went against his simplistic viewpoint.

There's another important distinction between Sarin gas and cruise missiles. The former can be produced and deployed quite easily by small players and is difficult for the top dogs to counter. Whereas cruise missiles and air supremacy require you to be the top dog. Essentially there's an element of "My weapons are moral, yours are not" to this. You can bet that if Syria had the technical superiority and we were at war with them, our government would countenance cheaply produced chemical weapons against Syria. It's the person with the gun declaring knives are illegal.

Well, quite but Might is Right is hardly a shocking revelation on the stage of human history is it.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Yea, but he does get a bit hysterically ranty and his point gets lost in an incoherent babble. Hell, he even had a go at yourself (who is firmly on side with his viewpoint) just because you pointed out the facts about WP....which went against his simplistic viewpoint.

They misread me. If anyone is to get upset over me being misread it should be me and I choose not to. I pointed out that they misread me and that was that because errors happen. Point stands - don't tell other people to stop posting because you personally aren't interested in what they're saying. If they're spreading lies, that's one thing. But just because you find something incoherent, maybe the rest of us don't. We can speculate as to the reasons.

Well, quite but Might is Right is hardly a shocking revelation on the stage of human history is it.

On the contrary, people in the West routinely seem to be oblivious to it and instead assume their government acts out of altruism and moral duty. Which is sometimes the case on the small scale but very seldom if ever on the international.

 

[Dis86]

@h4rm0ny

Oh don't get me wrong, I know fine well what they used it for hence my sarcastic tone regarding their defence. However you're right when you say it's what can be proven. In this respect Russia/Syria and Israel are very similar. We know they've murdered innocent civilians with banned weapons, we just can't prove it.

Not that murdering innocent civilians with non banned weapons is any better...

 

[Freakbro]

They misread me.

Well no, he didn't misread you, he just vehemently disagreed with your correct statement about the different uses of WP. His mistake was then to go on to make an incorrect extrapolation of that as you being one of these 'fictitious' people who think 'The West' are a bastion of purity and believe everything they say verbatum.

On the contrary, people in the West routinely seem to be oblivious to it and instead assume their government acts out of altruism and moral duty.

There may well be people who believe the Govt only act on a moral and alturistic basis.....I don't think there are any on here though are there? Like I posted earlier, by just pointing out our Govt isn't as bad as other muderous regimes isn't saying we are pure and just is it.

It's a bit like you keep harping back to the WMD dossier as though that's the basis for disbelieving everything the Govt ever says again. Whereas more rational people realise everybody, including Govts, lie sometimes and tell the truth others, you just have to decide on a case by case basis. And this is coming from me, who seemed to be one of the few people who said they were lying about Sadams WMD at the time, it was so obvious. The US Govt had decided to go in (you could tell that with the abrupt change in Colin Powells demeanour) and Blair was going to back them, so needed something to get support through the HOC and the dodgy dossier was it.