Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by George Hincapie, Feb 22, 2012.
When the side we like the least is clearly winning.
Its all very well saying this was not done by the regime, but stating it does not make it true. For instance, the manner of delivery requires delivery methods exclusively in the hands of the Syrian Army. The amount of chemicals used, especially if Sarin, remain very strictly in the control of the Syrian Army. Theres evidence of Syrian Army preparing for the attack and theres comms from after it.
As to the why, theres a whole host of reasons. Maybe the regime though the west would be paralysed and they could get away with - as they are currently doing. maybe they thought Russia and China would protect them - as they currently are. I think personally the High Command was not told, and it was Assads brother, a maniac with a massive grudge from a near fatal bombing, repsponsible for clearing the Damascus suburbs and in possession of an army base with the necessary chemicals and weaponry and a faltering offensive as the most likely suspect.
In all honesty until we see any evidence to the contrary the evidence points overwhelmingly to the SAA.
I will wait with abated breath for this evidence you speak of - not -
I'm sure if it was 'overwhelming' our prime minister would have used it in front of his colleagues the other day.....
Well firstly, the fact that the rocket delivery systems and the chemical weapons are in the hands of the SAA. The alternative is that the SAA lost a lot of chemical weapons and didnt mention it, and the Israelis didnt notice.
Second is the intelligence data, some of which I hope we'll see in the congressional debate. We know SAA activity was reported at a site used by the SAA to mix the weapons (theyre not stored 'ready to use', presumably for degradation reasons) prior to the attack, there are intercepts of SAA units in the area being advised such an attack was incoming and preparing for it, and confused comms straight after about the attack and who ordered it, and an answer to that.
So thats the weight of evidence for it, whats the evidence the FSA/SLF did it? I havent heard that yet?
That's right don't declare war on Syria Mr Cameron, just give them £50m instead.
Don't get me wrong I don't wish to send our troops anywhere to fight, but to give money away is a joke. We need to get our own house in order first.
I can see the logic as war would cost us a hell of a lot more.
Why this Island should give money away though, i don't know.
that's just 52m extra bringing us up to around 400m
According to kerry the arab countries were willing to pay for the whole invasion they should pay for the damn aid as well...
but they don't give a crap about the syrian civilians.
we should cut foreign aid/bribes to countries where we don't end up with more money back from business and put our own country in order
I just hope they don't all end up here!!
I'm sure we will take in our "fair share" if cameron gets more world face time which seems to be the most important thing.
we should stop trying to be on the world stage with the big boys and concentrate on getting rid of our tiny islands 1.2 trillion debt
if your in debt in real life you don't go making charity donations or taking people in off the streets
I think we've had our fair share since 1997.
The evidence seems to be very thin, I posted this link in the GD thread but I'll leave it here too, it's worth a read.
Why are Russia so tied to Syria?
This is a massive oversimplification, but Russia is one of Syria's biggest arms suppliers and they want to prevent the spread of US influence in the region.
So do you think Russia even if the evidence shows convincingly Syria used WOMD they will always side with them?
Is there any possibility of a WW3? Or is the American and allied countries far to powerful for Russia to even contemplate standing up to?...... Do Russia and Syria have any other "major" allies?
I believe Russia have said that they'll agree with the findings of the UN investigators and haven't ruled out supporting a UN measure authorising military intervention, but I expect they'd veto it anyway on the basis of finding a political solution.
China and Iran... Seeing as Russia, China and Iran have said they won't tolerate unauthorised US military action in Syria, I do think there could be a possibility if the US don't heed the warnings.
Russia don't want any foreign military powers anywhere in Asia, pretty much.
Think it's more to do with the Russian naval base at Tartus in Syria - I think it's their only one in the Med.
BBC cuts Putin interview out of the video
now they said Putin hasn't answered why they are backing Assad lol
half rebel fighters are jihadists or hardline Islamists, says IHS Jane's report
Separate names with a comma.