Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

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


  • Total voters
    828
  • Poll closed .
God, I despair, this isnt about whether your unemployment benefit goes down 2p, its about punishing the use of WMDs. Your islamic caliphate scaremongering smacks of excuses, fear and ignorance. But dont worry, theres a lot of you about so you;ll never be short of company.

Im not convinced youre not a troll as you keep on beating the same drum and refusing to accept information to the contrary of your daft statements, so I'll be ignoring most of your posts from now on.

scaremongering? it's known they are the ones in control of the stuff the syrian regime is not...

punishing the use of WMD's? there is no proof it was assad....
the other 100k+ deaths from standard shells and bullets aren't worth anything?
what about the other ignored civil wars in africa? that went ignored by western press and politicians?

even when our politicians were crying about helping libya they ignored syria whilst thousands were dieing.

we support other countries and supply them with crowd control gas so they can stop protests... and bleat on about freedom and democracy
 
Last edited:
There is more hard, concrete evidence that the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks than Assad deciding to gas his own people just as he's starting to get the upper hand.
 
Of course killing is never going to be right and especially when comes to children.

Leaving children aside, as someone who used to be in the mob, I'll be surprised if you don't see a moral difference between attacking your enemies with bullets/bombs and attacking them with nerve agent.

Except we are not talking about attacking our enemies, we are talking about the indiscriminate killing of civilian populations. I see no difference in the moral stance on such which is dependent upon the method which is employed.
 
2qv3yaw.jpg

:D:D
 
well il say it AGAIN last nights vote wasn't for military action though, that would be the NEXT VOTE.

as for what military action could achieve i dont know as i haven't seen any of the plans drawn up, have you ?

at least they could level a couple of military runways to stop them bombing the hell out of schools like the bbc has been showing, unless you feel kids being bombed from the air is all find and dandy and we should allow it to continue because we dont want to get our hands dirty.

as i said above if people enjoy talking about how civilized we are what does it make us when we wont act in the face of overwhelming deaths and actions ?

Did they purpousky bomb the school or was it a bomb that went awry? We certainly can't talk if the latter considering the collateral damage we inflicted in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan... If it's the former then I'd love to know what their motive was...

There are two sides to every story, a point many in this thread appear to have missed...
 
excuse me ?! :confused:

yet again you don't seem to realise the main fighting force behind the rebels and the ones who hijacked the peaceful protests were al nusra the people affiliated with al qaeda.

earlier you were telling us how if we didn't bomb assad the terrorists would get chemical weapons like you don't appear to understand who's on which side.

at least they could level a couple of military runways to stop them bombing the hell out of schools like the bbc has been showing, unless you feel kids being bombed from the air is all find and dandy and we should allow it to continue because we dont want to get our hands dirty.
remember 1991 when a civilian raid shelter in baghdad got bombed by allied planes?

you seem to be under the illusion because civilians get hurt it must be on purpose although in 1991 america did use laser guided bombs and purposely bomb the shelter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiriyah_shelter_bombing.

pretty sure assads forces are using dumb bombs and mistakes will happen.


but there is still no confirmation it was even a plane I'm sure the terrorists would martyr a few school children if it meant the west get involved it seemed to happen at such an ideal time
 
Last edited:
2 years of diplomacy and 100k deaths. so at what point do we say enough's enough ?

After we actually allow all the important parties, from both sides, to sit down at a table and discuss it through. You know, like an independent party.

So far we (UK and US) haven't allowed that to happen, scuppering both plans so far with sabre rattling and disallowing important allies of the Syrian government seats at the table.
 
2 years of diplomacy and 100k deaths. so at what point do we say enough's enough ?

how about the millions dead and tortured in all the African countries?

why arnt we invading all of them?

they should be first if your doing this o na human lives scale
 
He told the government he and his party were in favour of action then when the time came to vote double crossed them, he hasn't just broken an unwritten rule he has made our country look stupid on an international stage and all to further his own career.




There's an article up now about an incendiary bomb dropped on a primary school ^^




This seems to be a very common misconception on the internet, they are there to do what is best for the people/country, not what the people want (which would usually be bad for the people/country).

My understanding (may be wrong here) was that labour tabled a motion saying wait for the UN report (which is exactly what milliband was saying beforehand). That was defeated by the conservatives. In turn the government motion to allow potential military action with another vote was then defeated. He didn't turn his back on anything.
 
One positive from all of this, the voices of reasoned consideration are making themselves seen. Like this:

Anti-interventionists have made a variety of arguments, some stronger than others. Many are open to the same charge they levy against those who wish to take action, that of being self-serving and “colonial”. Their arguments assume that basic moral standards – such as the right not to be gassed – are a “western” luxury.

These opponents of action are often as aloof, uncaring and pragmatic as their claim that the interventionists’ arguments are – they argue on a narrow definition of national self-interest alone in foreign policy. They suffer from the same detached “leave the natives alone as long as they don’t trouble us” mindset that recalls Britain’s relationship with colonial India.

It is, furthermore, too late to oppose “foreign intervention”. Such claims implicitly legitimatise the outside interference that is already occurring – Russia, Iran and Hizbollah on the one side, and Saudi Arabia, Israel and Gulf states on the other.

David Cameron, the prime minister, seems to have given up on the cause. But he should not. That would turn last night’s vote from a mistake into tragedy.This stance also ignores the voice of the Syrian people. Many anti-interventionists confer on themselves the right to speak on Syria’s behalf. I am unaware of any mainstream Syrian political opposition or rebel group that opposes limited air strikes on Syria – except, that is, for al-Qaeda and its allies.

There are more valid concerns that military strikes could spark a sectarian and regional war, and that intervening could bolster al-Qaeda’s rebel forces fighting against the dictator. Well, both of these are already clear and present dangers – and they are largely due to us doing nothing so far.

Let us not forget that it was mainly the result of our inaction in Bosnia that jihadist “fellow travellers” were able to exploit this vacuum and claim to fight on behalf of oppressed Muslims. When I was 16, I joined the revolutionary Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir – partly, I see in retrospect, the result of British inaction in Bosnia.

In fact, intervening against Mr Assad – while being careful not to tactically aid the more extreme elements among the rebel forces – could well dent the al-Qaeda narrative that there is a Western war against Islam, and would certainly make it harder for the roughly 200 British jihadists in Syria to rally gullible recruits to attack the UK upon their return from this tragic war.

It is not enough to mourn last night’s mistake. MPs need to correct it.
 
Except we are not talking about attacking our enemies, we are talking about the indiscriminate killing of civilian populations. I see no difference in the moral stance on such which is dependent upon the method which is employed.

I think my question is, can't we be outraged at both the killing of civilians and then also the fact that chemical weapons were used?
 
BBC are reporting that France wants Assad removed from power by force. Ie, regime change.

Why would they want a radical Islamist Syrian state, tho? I don't understand.

Probably means Assad has the dirt on France and the French er elite are getting desperate.
 
how about the millions dead and tortured in all the African countries?

why arnt we invading all of them?

they should be first if your doing this o na human lives scale

honestly i dont know, maybe you can write to your mp and ask him to raise it at the un as to why the un has done nothing for 50 odd years ?

as for why the uk isnt running in i guess its that no un mandate thing again.

yet again you don't seem to realise the main fighting force behind the rebels and the ones who hijacked the peaceful protests were al nusra the people affiliated with al qaeda.

earlier you were telling us how if we didn't bomb assad the terrorists would get chemical weapons like you don't appear to understand who's on which side.

pretty sure assads forces are using dumb bombs and mistakes will happen.

but there is still no confirmation it was even a plane I'm sure the terrorists would martyr a few school children if it meant the west get involved it seemed to happen at such an ideal time

i was saying something had to be done OR theres a chance the chemical weapons will start to end up in the hands of terrorist. and thats if they already havent after last weeks attack, which i have never said was assad.

and sure dumb bombs can drift off target and we dont know for sure who did it, but its as easy to say prove it wasn't assad as saying prove it is.

Did they purpousky bomb the school or was it a bomb that went awry? We certainly can't talk if the latter considering the collateral damage we inflicted in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan... If it's the former then I'd love to know what their motive was...

There are two sides to every story, a point many in this thread appear to have missed...
 
Good God there should be a requirement to read the rest of the thread before asking stupid questions, but I suppose thats too much to ask. Lets see, you can take your pick - because its a decentralised command structure and some generals annoyed, because its actually assads brother who has the rockets and the chemicals and a serious grudge, because theyre the only ones who could, because theyve gotten away with it before, because they really wanted those suburbs, and now let me add another one - because they knew the Uk would pussy out of a response and they knew they could get away with it.

Conjecture milord.
 
Back
Top Bottom