Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

Would you support a military strike on Syria without a UN Security Council resolution?

  • Total voters
    828
  • Poll closed .
ubersonic said:
Do try and keep up ;) if you read back you will see a news article from when loyalist forces captured a rebel base where they had been stockpiling chemical weapons (some with the shipping info from Saudi Arabia still on it) reportedly for the purpose of chemically shelling Damascus.

Here ill save you the trouble :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXezs1YY01I&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Click to expand...

Ah such a credible source....

any details on the 'chemicals' - that will be a no then.... :D
 
Iraq... huge success.
Afghanistan... mission accomplished.

Let's make Syria a better place now.

/sarcasm

I really, really hope we leave well enough alone. Do we really need to be any more hated for interfering in other countries affairs, on the shakiest of shaky grounds? Like WMDs that never existed, for instance.

I'm sure after Syria is reduced to a third-world country (I mean, 'given democracy'), we'll find out that our intel was 'wrong' yet again.
 
dowie said:
Ah such a credible source....

any details on the 'chemicals' - that will be a no then.... :D
Click to expand...

possibly similar to these chemicals

and for the 50th time it is not just the rebels like most western media seems to like giving the impression of.

there are the ordinary rebels who want democracy or whatever and then there are
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18048033
who attack the rebels and fight with them depending on when it suits.

the same people doing suicide bombings since 2011 and if any "rebels" used chemical weapons it was likely al nursa front and not the normal people who just want assad gone.

any help for the rebels or any equipment is bound to help that terrorist organisation as well.
if assad collapses it's not the rebels who are organised and will likely sieze power it will be the al nursa front islam fanatics

sounds like we are already giving them equipment anyway
http://rt.com/news/uk-us-military-strike-syria-027/
 
Last edited:
Agreed - whomever survives and is most 'together' when the dust settles will be seizing control. However I think that whoever that ends up being will almost guaranteed have external backing from somewhere with international interests.
 
arknor said:
possibly similar to these chemicals
Click to expand...

and what 'chemicals' are those - bleach? Fairy liquid? I mean they've got a UN team in the country and yet the only 'evidence' we've got is some dodgy youtube footage of some 'chemicals' - do you not think that if they'd actually located a big stash of nerve agent stored by the rebels it would be fairly trivial to call in the UN team?

the previous video went on to make a spurious claim that the unspecified 'chemicals' shown might be used in conjunction with shells (presumably with some assistance from members of the A-Team) to create some form of crude method of delivering them...

I mean that's all it takes right - you just tip some 'chemicals' into some artillery shells and successfully kill over 1000 people - I mean some of these rebels have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for years and yet they've never pulled off an attack like that before? I mean it must be them and the whole make shift chemical weapons a-team style narrative that is the plausible story right?

I mean it would be highly unlikely, in comparison, for it to be the Syrian army who are actually known to have chemical weapons?
 
that's correct, you can't know for sure... but you can point out that one is significantly less realistic than the other
 
You can argue the possibility/probability but you can't argue that one is impossible and until you can there's little point in attempting to shoot each other down. All you can ever do is agree to disagree.
 
I've not stated that its impossible - I'm just pointing out that it is very improbable and the 'sources' are pretty dubious at best.
 
Not sure if already posted, though I'll leave this here, from leaked emails seven months ago.
http://web.archive.org/web/20130129213824/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270219/U-S-planned-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-Syria-blame-Assad.html

Not the most credible of sources and I know the Mirror was fined £100,000 for reporting these "faked" emails; though seek the truth for yourselves, as no matter how evil rulers appear I am still reminded.

Romans 13:1-7 " Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil. Wherefore it is necassary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them; tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to who fear; honor to whom honor."
 
Last edited:
Actually I have changed my mind, we should intervene on a military level, we should help Assad. IF we are planning on intervening to 'help the Syrian people' then surely part of that is taking into consideration that nothing is more damaging to a country then a power vacuum. Say we help the rebels, get a group of disjointed 3-rd parties that mostly hate each other into the lead position and watch as the place goes to hell as they turn on each other for the big chair. Or we help Assad who is head of a single party with a chain of command.

Better the Devil you know.
 
We/UK goverment were giving these rebels millions of pounds (Seventeen million is one figure I remember being flouted.) in support at the beggining of the year, it was all over the news as a matter of fact.

Yet still.

1 Timothy 2:1-2 "First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings be made on behalf of all men, for Kings and all who are in authority, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity."
 
Last edited:
Just shows Cameron, Hague and Obama are just puppets being told what to do.

There's definitely more into this. The leaders are probably fed false information from their intelligence services which is why they are so into it.
 
Going to war again :rolleyes:

We should be more like the sensible Scandanavian countries in contributing to NATO but apart from that keep a small armed forced and keep out of all that ****.

This war will be a waste of money and more importantly British lives.
 
dowie said:
and what 'chemicals' are those - bleach? Fairy liquid? I mean they've got a UN team in the country and yet the only 'evidence' we've got is some dodgy youtube footage of some 'chemicals' - do you not think that if they'd actually located a big stash of nerve agent stored by the rebels it would be fairly trivial to call in the UN team?

the previous video went on to make a spurious claim that the unspecified 'chemicals' shown might be used in conjunction with shells (presumably with some assistance from members of the A-Team) to create some form of crude method of delivering them...

I mean that's all it takes right - you just tip some 'chemicals' into some artillery shells and successfully kill over 1000 people - I mean some of these rebels have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for years and yet they've never pulled off an attack like that before? I mean it must be them and the whole make shift chemical weapons a-team style narrative that is the plausible story right?

I mean it would be highly unlikely, in comparison, for it to be the Syrian army who are actually known to have chemical weapons?
Click to expand...

We helped the rebels in those countries. They had no need to use chemicals because we wiped out their armies anyway . Not in syria though the rebels are about to lose hence why they'd need ti bust them out now in desperation.
 
I just don't understand why the US and UK are publicly so adamant they know Assad pulled the trigger when the inspectors are yet to report.

They have backed themselves into a corner now, their credibility will be shot, military action is guaranteed I am afraid.
 
The Running Man said:
We helped the rebels in those countries. They had no need to use chemicals because we wiped out their armies anyway . Not in syria though the rebels are about to lose hence why they'd need ti bust them out now in desperation.
Click to expand...

we fought an insurgency in Iraq for years, some of the same people now make up parts of these 'rebel' groups in Syria - you honestly think they just sat on this ability previously when fighting the USA but decided to 'bust them out now in desperation', against their own people?
 
OldCoals said:
I just don't understand why the US and UK are publicly so adamant they know Assad pulled the trigger when the inspectors are yet to report.
Click to expand...

the inspectors are establishing whether a chemical attack occurred - its become fairly apparent one has

as for who was responsible... tis fairly likely that the side which actually has chemical weapons was responsible
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom