Chemical Weapons

[BCM]

BBC News - Syria crisis: Incendiary bomb victims 'like the walking dead'

 

Why would Assad now do this, i just cant see why he would do this at a school.

 

I can see why outside forces would do it at a school, because it would benefit their argument about going in and bombing, but i sure cant see Assad doing it.

 

The fact that Russia have sent ships into the Med, tells me they smell bullshit too and are not having it.

[JER]

The inability to learn from history will eventually finish off the human race. Airstrikes will do little for the Syrian people, apart from reduce their number a little more.

 

I find it hard to tell the difference between this and the Iraq invasion that my dim witted local MP Lynne Featherstone got elected off the back off. Perhaps someone could enlighten me?

[piscinin]

The inability to learn from history will eventually finish off the human race. Airstrikes will do little for the Syrian people, apart from reduce their number a little more.

 

I find it hard to tell the difference between this and the Iraq invasion that my dim witted local MP Lynne Featherstone got elected off the back off. Perhaps someone could enlighten me?

 

There's plenty of differences. Primarily, none of the opposition groups are willing to align with US/UK strategic direction so regime change is not an option right now.

 

IMO The US/UK are just looking to make sure the existing civil war doesn't escalate through indiscriminate use of chemical weapons that both sides have and both sides have used.

 

Hezbollah have recently been playing an increasing role in the mess, so escalation is possible.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

BBC News - Syria crisis: Incendiary bomb victims 'like the walking dead'

 

Why would Assad now do this, i just cant see why he would do this at a school.

 

I can see why outside forces would do it at a school, because it would benefit their argument about going in and bombing, but i sure cant see Assad doing it.

 

The fact that Russia have sent ships into the Med, tells me they smell bullshit too and are not having it.

 

Did you watch the video? Eye witness accounts of a jet flying overhead. Was this the rebels then? Do they even have jets? Or was it a US jet? Allowed to freely enter Syrian airspace while a civil war is going on?

 

Or were the injuries faked? Good acting from the 14 year old lad with the skin hanging off him? Even better make up/special effects work.

 

Or maybe Assad, or those influencing him, are brutal lunatics who have a win at all costs mentality. Maybe he's following in his father's footsteps, because he was an evil, brutal loon too?

 

I call bullshit, like the Russians apparently have, but on your comments. If this was not the work of the Syrian forces, then what other possible explanation can you provide?

[Strontium]

I find it hard to tell the difference between this and the Iraq invasion that my dim witted local MP Lynne Featherstone got elected off the back off. Perhaps someone could enlighten me?

 

 

Iraq was accused of being a threat to us, Syria is accused of gassing its own citizens.

 

There was no credible evidence to support the Iraq WMDs, there is lots of evidence to support Syria's use of chemical weapons.

 

Bombing Syrian chemical weapons sites wouldn't be an invasion. An invasion requires, you know, an invasion.

 

Consider yourself enlightened, dimwit.

[piscinin]

Did you watch the video? Eye witness accounts of a jet flying overhead. Was this the rebels then? Do they even have jets? Or was it a US jet? Allowed to freely enter Syrian airspace while a civil war is going on?

 

Or were the injuries faked? Good acting from the 14 year old lad with the skin hanging off him? Even better make up/special effects work.

 

Or maybe Assad, or those influencing him, are brutal lunatics who have a win at all costs mentality. Maybe he's following in his father's footsteps, because he was an evil, brutal loon too?

 

I call bullshit, like the Russians apparently have, but on your comments. If this was not the work of the Syrian forces, then what other possible explanation can you provide?

 

There are many possible explanations.

 

Hezbollah (Iran) did it.

The opposition did it.

A rouge element within the Assad regime did it.

Israel(US/UK) did it.

[TheHowieLama]

A rouge element - nice.

[BCM]

Did you watch the video? Eye witness accounts of a jet flying overhead. Was this the rebels then? Do they even have jets? Or was it a US jet? Allowed to freely enter Syrian airspace while a civil war is going on?

 

Or were the injuries faked? Good acting from the 14 year old lad with the skin hanging off him? Even better make up/special effects work.

 

Or maybe Assad, or those influencing him, are brutal lunatics who have a win at all costs mentality. Maybe he's following in his father's footsteps, because he was an evil, brutal loon too?

 

I call bullshit, like the Russians apparently have, but on your comments. If this was not the work of the Syrian forces, then what other possible explanation can you provide?

 

 

I havent got the evidence, but then neither have the yanks. The fact that they are willing to go on bombing missions regardless of what the UN say, should send a shiver down your spine.

 

UK Hercules entered Libyan airspace whilst a civil war was going on, so it wouldnt be the first time. Of course im not saying we did anything.

 

I dont have the answers, but why would Assad want to drop Napalm on a school.

Why are the Americans so desperate to bomb yet another middle east country.

This goes far deeper than Chemical weapons of that im sure

[Red Phoenix]

The government got defeated? Did I wake up in an alternate dimension or something?

[zigackly]

There was no credible evidence to support the Iraq WMDs, there is lots of evidence to support Syria's use of chemical weapons.

 

So we are told. As we were told there was evidence of Iraqi WMDs. It's no real surprise many are cynical.

[piscinin]

So we are told. As we were told there was evidence of Iraqi WMDs. It's no real surprise many are cynical.

 

It's a brave new world. Actual rather than credible evidence is required it seems.

[Stickman]

Come on we have to go to war it's a prime ministers right to top up his pension with all those tours of U.S universities....

I mean they reckon Tony Blair has made something like £35 million a year from all his business ventures since Iraq/Afghanistan.

[Red Phoenix]

Or was it a US jet? Allowed to freely enter Syrian airspace while a civil war is going on?

 

If this was not the work of the Syrian forces, then what other possible explanation can you provide?

 

It could be any number of jets. Turkey covers Syria's northern border, they have 2 bases that the US and NATO can use, or it could've been a Turkish jet. Israeli jets could've left their own country and entered from the west as the sea is on Syria's western border, they have previous with this type of thing. The US have 2 aircraft carriers nearby so the jet could've flown from there. Then there's Cyprus too : Syria crisis: warplanes spotted in Cyprus as tensions rise in Damascus | World news | The Guardian

 

I no I doubt they'd be bothered about being allowed to enter.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I find it absolutely bizarre that some people are effectively arguing Assad's case for him. Being skeptical of all claims is one thing, instantly dismissing anything which says the regime might be a touch kill-y is another thing entirely.

[zigackly]

I find it absolutely bizarre that some people are effectively arguing Assad's case for him. Being skeptical of all claims is one thing, instantly dismissing anything which says the regime might be a touch kill-y is another thing entirely.

 

I don't dismiss it but I don't trust our government to tell us the truth either, after Iraq in 2003, and even if I did I am not sure whether it should be our role to spend billions and the lives of British servicemen on fighting in other countries when there is no UN mandate to do so.

 

Further, I am not convinced that missile strikes would deter the Assad regime from acting this way again, if it was indeed them what done it, and I think it is a situation in which unilateral action by us and the US could spiral into further action and have ramifications outside Syria.

 

I do abhor the situation in Syria for the normal people there, and would not be opposed to UN led peacekeeping action for the right reasons but I mistrust US motives in the region, and don't think their and our past actions in the region have led to improvements for the lives of many normal civilians.

 

Tangentially, last night was actually a very rare victory for democracy in one respect, because for once a parliamentary vote may actually represent the will of the people instead of the will of a political party.

[Lee909]

The Russians do not smell bullshit they smell the loss of millions of dollars lost in arms sales and loosing its only Med naval base in Tartus.Im not saying that the choice of air strikes/miltary action is correct until more is known.But if anyone thinks that Putin is doing this for any reason bar his own they are living in cuckoo land

[skend04]

It's pure electioneering. Cameron recalled parliament thinking he'd get the vote through in time for some weekend missile-launching escapades so he could then ramp up his PR offensive for 2015.

 

Thank fuck he got stopped. With who knows how many disparate groups involved including Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda for opposing sides, it's just guess work at best to think one side used chemical weapons. Afterall I'm guessing it wouldn't be difficult for one of the groups to muster up sarin. This is one for the UN to sort.

[Jose Jones]

I find it absolutely bizarre that some people are effectively arguing Assad's case for him. Being skeptical of all claims is one thing, instantly dismissing anything which says the regime might be a touch kill-y is another thing entirely.

 

Yeah, it's probably going a bit far, but also understandable given recent history.

 

The thing is the argument for doing something seems to be "Someone used chemical weapons, so we've got to kill lots more innocent people so that some other government somewhere might think twice about using chemical weapons in the future".

 

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Yeah, it's probably going a bit far, but also understandable given recent history.

 

The thing is the argument for doing something seems to be "Someone used chemical weapons, so we've got to kill lots more innocent people so that some other government somewhere might think twice about using chemical weapons in the future".

 

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

I'm fairly sure the killing of innocent people doesn't come into the equation. Yes, there might be some collateral damage when targeting military targets but people shouldn't really get this mixed up with Iraq and Afghanistan - both wars which I was against and argued against for a long time - because it's totally different.

[Jose Jones]

I'm fairly sure the killing of innocent people doesn't come into the equation. Yes, there might be some collateral damage when targeting military targets but people shouldn't really get this mixed up with Iraq and Afghanistan - both wars which I was against and argued against for a long time - because it's totally different.

 

The consequences would be similar though. We kill a fair number of people, whilst concentrating on military targets. Country gets even more chaotic and shed loads more innocent people die. What is the desired outcome of any military action? And how would it be achieved?

[zigackly]

Numero, I'm interested to know what you think lobbing a few cruise missiles and "standoff" munitions from jets would achieve here.

 

Also, do you think the UK not getting involved will deter the US from doing whatever the fuck it wants anyway?

[JER]

Iraq was accused of being a threat to us, Syria is accused of gassing its own citizens.

 

There was no credible evidence to support the Iraq WMDs, there is lots of evidence to support Syria's use of chemical weapons.

 

Bombing Syrian chemical weapons sites wouldn't be an invasion. An invasion requires, you know, an invasion.

 

Consider yourself enlightened, dimwit.

 

Plenty of evidence? The UN inspectors haven't even reported yet. That is the point.

 

I'm sure when the Syrian people are having the shit bombed out of them, they will not really be able to tell the difference between an invasion or a friendly helping hand.

 

Gove's little tantrum was quite amusing, though.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Numero, I'm interested to know what you think lobbing a few cruise missiles and "standoff" munitions from jets would achieve here.

 

Well, 'lobbing a few cruise missiles' isn't going to do much. I think it's far more likely that they'll aim to cripple the back of the Syrian armed forces with a multilateral force of super-powers striking strategic targets in order to stop them attacking civilians. I don't think that would be particularly difficult to achieve.

 

Breaking the back of the Syrian armed won't be the issue, stopping them won't be the issue at all. It's what comes next that's the unknown. It's the reaction of other nations that could be part of a problem. Still, stopping Assad's regime from using chemical warfare against its own people is certainly doable. Or, at the very least, making it much more difficult.

 

Also, do you think the UK not getting involved will deter the US from doing whatever the fuck it wants anyway?

 

I highly doubt the US will go in unilaterally.

 

The consequences would be similar though. We kill a fair number of people, whilst concentrating on military targets. Country gets even more chaotic and shed loads more innocent people die. What is the desired outcome of any military action? And how would it be achieved?

 

I've got to disagree there, mate The consequences would be totally different because the action would be totally different.

[zigackly]

It wasn't going to be multilateral, it was going to be us and the US with no real evidence and no UN backing. You're not going to stop Assad from doing what he is doing (if indeed he did it) without interference at ground level, and to do that would take a properly planned multilateral exercise. If we are going to go in to help the Syrian people, then lets do it properly. That's my opinion anyway, I understand that you differ.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

 

I'm sure when the Syrian people are having the shit bombed out of them, they will not really be able to tell the difference between an invasion or a friendly helping hand.

 

I think they probably will, JER. I'd imagine there's a distinct difference between having your skin melted off or having your organs shut down as a result of chemical weapons and seeing on-rushing forces' tanks blown up in the distance.

 

You, and others, make it sound as if we'll just go in and attack civilians. That's clearly not what will happen. Might somebody get caught up in an attack? Well, yes, it's possible. Does that mean it's not worth reducing their capability to wage chemical ware on their civilians? I guess that's a judgment call.