Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

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

  • Total voters
    828
  • Poll closed .
scorza said:
That said, I do think that the Syrian regime are behind the latest chemical weapon attack. There's no other plausible explanation. Bet Obama is regretting making that a "red line" now. Oh well, let's get on with the token air strikes and then back to doing nothing.
Click to expand...

Why would Assad do the one thing that would almost certainly guarantee an attack from the west?
 
OldCoals said:
Why would Assad do the one thing that would almost certainly guarantee an attack from the west?
Click to expand...

You watch those nasty vids of people suffering from "something" Some look pretty real but i am sceptical now, not to the point of tin foil headwear, that the rebels martyred themselves for the good of the cause. It looks staged... It looks fake when you compare it to know faked events.

Im sure some people died that day for something... to get the West to win their civil war for them.
 
yhack said:
I'm not sure what posting a video of a man crying, whilst holding his dead children is meant to do, but doing it on a case by case basis is the ideal situation, which I tend to do. However, after the amount of people using YouTube as evidence that Obama is a reptile, which is exactly what I'll find when I look for 'fake news', I'll give it a miss. There's too much crap to filter out.
Click to expand...

Are any of the videos linked earlier about Obama being a reptile or even the topic of the thread anyhow related to conspiracy cases?

My apologies, I forgot you dismissed any of the links provided earlier and was under the assumption you had watched

http://www.********.com/view?i=4a9_1377562800

Which showed the same "crying man" apparently clutching his dead children in a chemical attack months apart.
 
ubersonic said:
Not really, that's how it was taught to us in school, basically the USA built a missile base so close to the USSR that they could launch and hit Moscow before the USSR even had time to get a missile airborne, so in response the USSR built one so close to the USA that they could take out Washington before the USA could get a missile airborne. Then an agreement was made to dismantle both bases, it was hailed in media as a US victory against the bad guys but in reality the US was outmaneuvered politically.

Going OT now though ;)
Click to expand...

:confused:

The missiles deployed to Turkey and Italy were obsolete, especially as the US now had Polaris. They didn't need missiles in Turkey.

The decision to remove the missiles from Turkey and Italy was a secret, and as such humiliated the Soviets as they publicly backed down. The compromise was unknown to the general media.

It was the Soviets who were outmanoeuvred.
 
OldCoals said:
Why would Assad do the one thing that would almost certainly guarantee an attack from the west?
Click to expand...

Decent article for a change in the 'Fail suggesting that Assad wouldn't have approved such an attack. The suggestion is that it would have been his mental brother. Personally I think Assad knows that the West has no appetite to get involved in Syria, he'll happily take the air strikes that US-Britain-France are talking about.

Who else has the capability to launch a chemical weapon attack in the Syria right now?
Why were the UN weapons inspectors forced to wait for 48 hours before being given access to the site by the Syrian regime?
 
FTM said:
hague in particular is getting right up my nose

can politicians not see that the are is just too split on religious and tribal lines..let the bloody arab league sort it out, we should keep well away..there enough big military powers already over there to do something about it if they want to

if we get involved all they will see is the west killing more muslims..the reasons behind it instantly vanish
Click to expand...

yeah, i think we'll just make more enemies, like you say, we are genuinely trying to help but the arab world see the evil west killing muslims.

stay out, we are still in too deep with afghanistan to be starting another war.
 
Craterloads said:
Russia is sending in its own subs / cruiser, I think. Just over heard on sky news. Could get interesting.
Click to expand...

cool now we just need china to send some of it's own aircraft carriers and for russia and china to declare they are going to enforce international law by stopping any unauthorised and illegal attacks on another country.
I'd love to see it just for someone to shut America up for once and put them in their place
 
All we should be offering is humanitarian support for those who can get out and for those brave enough and willing to go in and help people. I bet one missile could help a substantial amount of people without the animosity. It's like a extended family fight in one's neighbourhood - you don't want to get fully involved as it's complex but one may offer support whenever and where ever one can. That's how we build positive relations.
 
arknor said:
cool now we just need china to send some of it's own aircraft carriers and for russia and china to declare they are going to enforce international law by stopping any unauthorised and illegal attacks on another country.
I'd love to see it just for someone to shut America up for once and put them in their place
Click to expand...

Carriers? China only have one aircraft carrier, and it's not even operational.
 
Well, Assad is dispersing and bunkering his heavies and shifting command and control points, so in four days time when the UN gets its report and then the week to consider it, any benefit from bombing will be inconsequential. The nay sayers can pat themselves on the back as Assad realises he can remove enemy strongpoints and still have two weeks grace, so he gases the country, maybe those pesky Kurds too, give some to Hezbollah as a thank you and Iran gets the measure of just how much the West is willing to let people die as long as theyre the wrong colour and far away. Pretty ******* pathetic.
 
Craterloads said:
Are any of the videos linked earlier about Obama being a reptile or even the topic of the thread anyhow related to conspiracy cases?
Click to expand...
No, but the first post I quoted was in a conspiracy theorist style, which I why I said to not simply believe YouTube.

Craterloads said:
My apologies, I forgot you dismissed any of the links provided earlier and was under the assumption you had watched

http://www.********.com/view?i=4a9_1377562800

Which showed the same "crying man" apparently clutching his dead children in a chemical attack months apart.
Click to expand...

I do not understand what you are trying to say, my point is that YouTube is not credible, unless you have additional sources.

That may have been the same day, and the second video was released later. Please provide further information from a different source. Again, I will not simply believe a single video.

Are you saying that everything is being acted? I really don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom