Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

[Hedge]

Yeah, Like assad would use chemical weapons when he was going to win the war in matter of weeks anyway... Sounds real smart...

CLEARLY it couldnt have been rebels doing and then blame it on assad to get the support from NATO cause otherwise they would be dead in few weeks...

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but believing the "official" story is just beyond me.

Assad did not use chemical weapons when he was nearly losing the war, and now when the victory is in sights he decides to go all YOLO]

And if irrefutable evidence comes out that assad was behind it, do we still avoid " bombing the freedom" out of people?

I hate us being involved in every conflict (it actually impacts my working life). Yet I feel sometimes it's necessary to step in. Even if there is a bonus to the UKs interests somewhere down the line.

 

[Craterloads]

More people were killed by the western backed Egyptian military only last week, against democratic and unarmed protestors during sitins, using weapons provided by the west. How come no bombing campaign?

Nobody taking that to the UN, where's boldy Hague?

 

[IronWarrior]

More people were killed by the western backed Egyptian military only last week, against democratic and unarmed protestors during sitins, using weapons provided by the west. How come no bombing campaign?

Some of them unarmed protestors wasn't as unarmed as they made themselves out to be.

But yeah, why are we not bombing Egypt already?

 

[Craterloads]

Some of them unarmed protestors wasn't as unarmed as they made themselves out to be.

But yeah, why are we not bombing Egypt already?

The ones killed in the mosque sitins were all or 99% unarmed, and a large part killed were women and children.

 

[DisrupTor75]

I can remember W hauge saying there was no UK soldiers on the ground in Libya
and at the same time al jerez news was showing them on the ground on a live feed.

That's why you cant believe a single word from our rotten-to-the-core politicians.

 

[arknor]

The british SAS captured by farmers??

that chinese news station did an anime of it

 

[Narj]

For once I just wish we'd keep our god-damned noses out of the Middle-East. Why aren't their immediate neighbours doing anything about it and why do we always feel like we have to get involved?

I'm sure once we've "liberated" the place, they'll hate us just as much as other countries in the region.

EDIT: If they go ahead with intervention, so much for reducing the national debt/deficit.

 

[arknor]

EDIT: If they go ahead with intervention, so much for reducing the national debt/deficit.

reducing funding to all the councils , kicking people off benefits , bedroom tax , the VAT rise etc will have paid for this war so we can afford it

 

[Paul11]

yeh, and how much is each cruise missle, something stupid like 200,000k

 

[Marine Iguana]

So after this who is next on our list of countries we need to "help".

 

[Muzza1875]

More people were killed by the western backed Egyptian military only last week, against democratic and unarmed protestors during sitins, using weapons provided by the west. How come no bombing campaign?

Nobody taking that to the UN, where's boldy Hague?

Unarmed protesters? You mean jihadists?
The same ones going around burning down churches, executing policeman and soldier's, throwing kids of roofs and attacking police stations and shooting journalists.

 

[Devlish]

Yeah, Like assad would use chemical weapons when he was going to win the war in matter of weeks anyway... Sounds real smart...

CLEARLY it couldnt have been rebels doing and then blame it on assad to get the support from NATO cause otherwise they would be dead in few weeks...

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but believing the "official" story is just beyond me.

Assad did not use chemical weapons when he was nearly losing the war, and now when the victory is in sights he decides to go all YOLO.

You clearly have no idea what youre talking about.

And if irrefutable evidence comes out that assad was behind it, do we still avoid " bombing the freedom" out of people?

I hate us being involved in every conflict (it actually impacts my working life). Yet I feel sometimes it's necessary to step in. Even if there is a bonus to the UKs interests somewhere down the line.

Well there is some talk of comms intercepts straight after the attack pointing at a unilateral action by Assads nutjob brother, but thats in the Daily Fail so who knows.

I do agree with you though, 100,000 people dead, WMds and pics of gassed babies in the morgue, and were still thinking 'ooooh i dont know.'

Well, if not now, when the **** do you know.

 

[arknor]

Unarmed protesters? You mean jihadists?
The same ones going around burning down churches, executing policeman and soldier's, throwing kids of roofs and attacking police stations and shooting journalists.

sounds a lot like the people we are about to help along with the rebels

 

[Schlong&Stable]

More people were killed by the western backed Egyptian military only last week, against democratic and unarmed protestors during sitins, using weapons provided by the west. How come no bombing campaign?

Nobody taking that to the UN, where's boldy Hague?

Care to source that claim?

In any event, we didn't bomb the Syrians for the last two years, so I would expect even the most casual observer to have figured out it's the use of chemical weapons that created the pretext for this.

As I've already explained in this thread, civilians dying to conventional weapons can be argued down to collateral damage, unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. You cannot make that argument with chemical weapons.

Libya is actually an example of our taking action against a nation who were clearly going to kill civilians. The move was not altogether selfish either, as Gaddafi was actually something of a Western stooge after 9/11.

 

[Dugganator]

yeh, and how much is each cruise missle, something stupid like 200,000k

According to google they are more like 1.4million dollars per missile

 

[arknor]

Care to source that claim?

In any event, we didn't bomb the Syrians for the last two years, so I would expect even the most casual observer to have figured out it's the use of chemical weapons that created the pretext for this.

As I've already explained in this thread, civilians dying to conventional weapons can be argued down to collateral damage, unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. You cannot make that argument with chemical weapons.

Libya is actually an example of our taking action against a nation who were clearly going to kill civilians. The move was not altogether selfish either, as Gaddafi was actually something of a Western stooge after 9/11.

we don't even know who used chemical weapons we are being told only assad has them which is a massive lie as western ally and nato member turkey only a couple of months ago obtained a 2kg sarin gas cannister that al nusra had.

it doesn't appear that any government is prepared to wait for UN evidence incase it turns out it's not the evidence the UK/US wants to hear

 

[RDM]

we don't even know who used chemical weapons we are being told only assad has them which is a massive lie

If we don't know who used the chemical weapons how do you know that Assad has them is a massive lie?

 

[areksnumbr1sxylady]

You clearly have no idea what youre talking about.

Enlighten me please.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

we don't even know who used chemical weapons we are being told only assad has them which is a massive lie as western ally and nato member turkey only a couple of months ago obtained a 2kg sarin gas cannister that al nusra had.

it doesn't appear that any government is prepared to wait for UN evidence incase it turns out it's not the evidence the UK/US wants to hear

The UN is not going to establish who used chemical weapons, only that they were used. But no one outside of Syria doubts that they were actually used. Even Iran and Russia say that chemical weapons were used, they just argue that the rebels are responsible.

I can absolutely believe the rebels are capable of carrying out a chemical attack, but I seriously doubt they did in this case. The US has been very stubborn about getting directly involved in Syria, so when they say they have evidence that Assad is responsible, I believe them. If there wasn't overwhelming evidence, they'd happily sit on their hands and watch the conflict continue.

Contrary to what many are saying in this thread, I dont' think the US wants to be involved in this. If they did, they'd have made much bigger waves before now. Obama is being dragged into this against his will. I am not even sure Israel wants an intervention because they don't have a pony in the race and they certainly don't want to suffer the consequences of Western intervention (as they did with the first gulf war).

 

[Devlish]

Enlighten me please.

Well firstly, there is no way Assad is 'weeks away' from victory, he barely got Aleppo last month and has this month lost airbases and more territory in the north. His only 'successes' have been with the assistance of hezbollah fighters and the gas attack on Damascus was targetted at suburbs he has been unable to retake to date. If youre bombarding your own capital city youre definitely not 'weeks' from victory.

So that pretty much kills all your other points. Assad would be crazy to use chemicals, but he isnt in charge, so who knows what the military think they can get away with.

Contrary to what many are saying in this thread, I dont' think the US wants to be involved in this. If they did, they'd have made much bigger waves before now. Obama is being dragged into this against his will. I am not even sure Israel wants an intervention because they don't have a pony in the race and they certainly don't want to suffer the consequences of Western intervention (as they did with the first gulf war).

Wow some clear thinking. I agree, theres been no downside to not getting involved, Iran throwing billions and only just managing to prop up the regime, hezbollah fighters who successfully held the Israeli Army being squandered on street fighting, Islamists flocking to the conflict ( away from US and UK forces) and Russia looking terrible in its continued support for the murder of innocents. But the chemical weps were the step too far, obama cant be seen to be widening his red line to the point of ridiculousness.