Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

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

  • Total voters
    828
  • Poll closed .
Devlish said:
I have no doubt that some factions have used whatever they could get their hands on in depots, possibly a mortar shell or two. The war is just that vicious.

However its a huge leap to say they managed to collect the arty pieces and a sufficient supply for a concentrated bombardment on three different sites without anyone saying anything. The chemical weapons are the most tightly guarded depots in Syria and the Israelis are watching them like hawks.
Click to expand...

You miss the point we have been told that it was Assad, there has been no ambiguity in the claims that Assad was responsible.
 
arknor said:
so what about the evidence of turkey recovering 2kg of sarin gas from al nusra? and the fact we keep being told only assad has chemical weapons FACEPALM.JPG
Click to expand...

Is there any evidence of this? Or is it just something you've seen on Russia Today?

arknor said:
who's more likely to use chemical weapons? terrorist group or government that hadn't used chemical weapons even when it was losing?
Click to expand...

The people who have them are more likely to use them.
 
Thompson_NCL said:
Allegedly, the evidence the West has, indicates that Assads brother is responsible for the attacks, without the knowledge of the government. Given that he is meant to have been disfigured (losing part of a leg and hand) during a bomb explosion that killed the defence minister etc earlier this year, is it so hard to imagine he is acting irrationally?
Click to expand...
If that is the case, then it's somebody acting outside of the structure of command & should be treated the same as when one of our guys goes crazy & shoots up a load of civilians, he should be tried by a Syrian military court for his crimes.

This is what we do when the situation is reversed.

Just because his motivations may not be logical, the situation still is - if the above is true then the government didn't act stupidly & start using chemical weapons - it was a crackpot hell-bent on revenge.

Either way it doesn't justify a war against the Assad.

Personally any war would be pointless, as while I'm fairly sure Assad is scum (like any politician) the people who would replace him are likely to be just as bad - but with the added cost of destroying the infrastructure of the nation (Which overall will resulting in more suffering than who is in charge).

Hospitals, roads, electricity, water & jobs mean more than who get's to sit in the leaders chair.
 
Last edited:
scorza said:
Is there any evidence of this? Or is it just something you've seen on Russia Today?.
Click to expand...
turkish news paper
http://translate.google.co.uk/trans...refox-a&hs=LJw&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radikal
In 2004 Radikal was awarded the Turk Democracy Associations "Democracy Media Award"
Despite only having a circulation of around 25,000 (July 2013), it is considered one of the most influential Turkish newspapers.

more turkish news paper reports
http://www.********.com/view?i=95d_1369914320
 
Last edited:
elmarko said:
If that is the case, then it's somebody acting outside of the structure of command & should be treated the same as when one of our guys goes crazy & shoots up a load of civilians, he should be tried by a Syrian military court for his crimes.

This is what we do when the situation is reversed.

Just because his motivations may not be logical, the situation still is - if the above is true then the government didn't act stupidly & start using chemical weapons - it was a crackpot hell-bent on revenge.

Either way it doesn't justify a war against the Assad.

Personally any war would be pointless, as while I'm fairly sure Assad is scum (like any politician) the people who would replace him are likely to be just as bad - but with the added cost of destroying the infrastructure of the nation (Which overall will resulting in more suffering than who is in charge).

Hospitals, roads, electricity, water & jobs mean more than who get's to sit in the leaders chair.
Click to expand...

The war is whats destroying the infrastructure, has already destroyed, has killed 106,000 men women and children and counting, the SAA who is shelling hospitals, and any concentration of civilians, its own cities. The infrastructure of the nation has gone and 3.5 million refugees have fled the country.

So what was it you wanted to avoid? If anything the only way to achieve what you say you desire is stopping it now and there really is only one way to achieve that.

As for the SAA holding Assads brother to account, they havent even admitted it was him, would never admit it which might be a necessary first step in bringing him to account?
 
Craterloads said:
Just goes to show why the UN needs a overhaul as in its current form is nothing but a ****ing contest between the big 5
Click to expand...

It would be nice if Africa,Asia and South Americans got more say too, as outside the Russians and the Chinese, the west has the most say on what happens anyway.

It is hardly representative of the world's population as there are billions of people who are underrepresented.

However,since the west provides most of the actual funding for the UN it is never going to be as impartial as it needs to be sadly.
 
elmarko said:
If that is the case, then it's somebody acting outside of the structure of command & should be treated the same as when one of our guys goes crazy & shoots up a load of civilians, he should be tried by a Syrian military court for his crimes.

This is what we do when the situation is reversed.

Just because his motivations may not be logical, the situation still is - if the above is true then the government didn't act stupidly & start using chemical weapons - it was a crackpot hell-bent on revenge.

Either way it doesn't justify a war against the Assad.

Personally any war would be pointless, as while I'm fairly sure Assad is scum (like any politician) the people who would replace him are likely to be just as bad - but with the added cost of destroying the infrastructure of the nation (Which overall will resulting in more suffering than who is in charge).

Hospitals, roads, electricity, water & jobs mean more than who get's to sit in the leaders chair.
Click to expand...

There won't BE a war against Assad, there will be limited strikes designed to reduce the regimes capacity for another chemical strike. Most likely the primary target will be the 4th armoured as they are the ones commanded by Assads brother and the ones who are believed to be responsible for the chemical attack.

This is purely going to be a punitive action, not war in the specific sense.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
It would be nice if Africa,Asia and South Americans got more say too, as outside the Russians and the Chinese, the west has the most say on what happens anyway.

It is hardly representative of the world's population as there are billions of people who are underrepresented.

However,since the west provides most of the actual funding for the UN it is never going to be as impartial as it needs to be sadly.
Click to expand...

Outside of the Chinese and Russians, there are only three other permanent members anyway, so it's not like there is a huge bias towards the West. Especially as there is a veto power meaning one nation vetoing is worth more than the other four being in favour of something.

There are discussions about adding India and Brazil, but let us be frank, the current members of the council do pretty much represent the movers and shakers of the world. Neither India, Brazil nor South Africa have anywhere near the political/economic/military might of the current members.

I personally think the UN is a load of nonsense anyway, but the security council does maintain some form of stability which is all we need from it.
 
elmarko said:
If that is the case, then it's somebody acting outside of the structure of command & should be treated the same as when one of our guys goes crazy & shoots up a load of civilians, he should be tried by a Syrian military court for his crimes.

This is what we do when the situation is reversed.

Just because his motivations may not be logical, the situation still is - if the above is true then the government didn't act stupidly & start using chemical weapons - it was a crackpot hell-bent on revenge.

Either way it doesn't justify a war against the Assad.

Personally any war would be pointless, as while I'm fairly sure Assad is scum (like any politician) the people who would replace him are likely to be just as bad - but with the added cost of destroying the infrastructure of the nation (Which overall will resulting in more suffering than who is in charge).

Hospitals, roads, electricity, water & jobs mean more than who get's to sit in the leaders chair.
Click to expand...

Is that a serious suggestion? That the Syrian regime should arrest and try the President's brother, who also commands the Syrian Republican Guard, elite Fourth Armoured Division and the Secret Police. You realise that Syria isn't a western style democracy and therefore operates in a slightly different way to us. I'm pretty sure that Basher al-Assad is more than a bit worse than a typical polician, however much I dislike them.
 
Thompson_NCL said:
There won't BE a war against Assad, there will be limited strikes designed to reduce the regimes capacity for another chemical strike. Most likely the primary target will be the 4th armoured as they are the ones commanded by Assads brother and the ones who are believed to be responsible for the chemical attack.

This is purely going to be a punitive action, not war in the specific sense.
Click to expand...

So what happens when the terrorists use chemical weapons again to further their own aims?

What gets struck then? More 4th Armoured? Govt infrastructure?

Don't kid yourself that there's any "limited objectives" rubbish, that'll change as soon as we lose the first couple of planes...
 
matt_fsr said:
So what happens when the terrorists use chemical weapons again to further their own aims?

What gets struck then? More 4th Armoured? Govt infrastructure?

Don't kid yourself that there's any "limited objectives" rubbish, that'll change as soon as we lose the first couple of planes...
Click to expand...

Im not sure who youre talking about, but thats the point of punishment isnt it.
 
arknor said:
so multiple news papers in turkey are wrong?
the reuters article doesn't even appear to get the number of people released correct
Click to expand...

I think he's backing your case. So far your only source seems to be the Turkish equivalent of the Morning Star, and picked up by Russia Today.
 
scorza said:
I think he's backing your case. So far your only source seems to be the Turkish equivalent of the Morning Star, and picked up by Russia Today.
Click to expand...

one of the turkish papers ******** links to is zaman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaman_(newspaper)
which seems to be the biggest news paper in turkey

but nevermind all the turkish news papers obviously got it wrong and somehow the story got lost in translation from turkish to turkish and reuters must be right
 
arknor said:
so multiple news papers in turkey are wrong?
the reuters article doesn't even appear to get the number of people released correct
Click to expand...

OK so we have on one hand - a newspaper with the circulation of the Enfield Gazette saying 2 KILOS OF SARIN SHOCK!

On the other hand we have a direct quote from the provincial governor (you know, in charge of the police and stuff) saying errr No chemicals, six of the twelve released and no organisation named.

Yeah, I guess thats a tough call.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom