SYRIA: Nerve Gas Attack

Good for you in the UK.

Yes, it is horrendous to see what has happened but where is it written that other countries can cause even more suffering by the use of missiles etc?

I may be wrong but I see nothing moral about that.

bb1 wrote:According to gossip on Sky and elsewhere, Tory heavyweight Michael Gove has lost the plot and got into a massive barney somewhere in the corridors with assorted backbenchers.

Which was witnessed by an SNP MP, who gleefully recounted it.

 

Today was the first time in years I've bothered to watch a Commons debate, Lily, and I must admit I was impressed with many of the speakers.

There was one Tory backbencher in particular, Sir someone-other - who demolished Cameron's case for going to war. It was novel to see them remembering that they were supposed to be representing the public, and acting as their consciences dictated, not the Party Whips.

The full significance of all this won't really sink in with commentators till tomorrow, I don't think. No-one can remember a PM being humiliated like this before.

Am looking forward to reading tomorrow, Bonny. In the meantime, I am praying that the powers that be on this side of the pond follow the lead of the UK.

It followed rejection for a Labour amendment to the motion which called for military action to be taken only once the UN Security Council had voted in light of a report from weapons inspectors on the ground in Syria. End quote.

And what is wrong with that, for God's sake? Or did Cameron just want to go in with both feet flying?
Well, not actually Cameron. Oh No, like the Generals of old, he would be on a hill watching developments. What a moron.

He couldn't explain how firing Cruise missiles at Syria was going to help anything; his 'evidence' consisted of what he called 'open source' material - which turned out to be YouTube and the Official Rebel FB - and I wish I WAS making that up.

I question his sanity, Sabot, I simply do not know why he was so hell-bent on dragging the UK into yet another Middle East war with no thought to the consequences. He didn't even remember that most basic rule - My enemy's enemy is my friend. He was actually intending to all this to aid a bunch of Al Quaeda-backed savages who have been beheading Christians, murdering prisoners, slaughtering Muslims from different sects, and eating the internal organs of dead enemies. It beggared belief.

I don't know why he wouldn't wait for the UN to report or why he kept insisting that the rebels didn't have chemical weapons, when it's a matter of record that they do. Something clearly happened last week, but no-one except the culprits know what, why or who did it.

He should have seen the writing on the wall when even the Sun wouldn't back him.

I am stunned, Bonny. How can one put into words the horror of him not requiring proof? There are people there at the moment looking for proof, for God's sake. What is the point of them?

But apart from that, how can you protect innocent civilians, women and children, by lobbing missiles at them?

I can't say that I have been overly impressed by Cameron, but this beggars belief. I cannot begin to understand what he thinks he is doing.

And why Syria? Horrible things happen all over the world. The North Korean madman has apparently just had his ex-girlfriend and her pals shot on a trumped-up charge? By Cameron's logic we should intervene there.

What about Africa? Nigeria, where churches, and their congregations, are being incinerated by Muslim fanatics. How about the Mexican drug wars? Innocent people are being caught in the middle of that.

As for this business of just 'sending warning shots '- FFS. You can't have a little bit of a war, when you start bombing other countries you have started a war with them.

Also, Cameron's efforts to bulldoze the UK into a war with NO proof made a lot of people, including me, wonder what he was hiding, that he was in such a hurry to launch the missiles.

There is so much more to this than just who done it. And whose idea was it anyway? Obama's or Cameron's?
Okay, Chemical Weapons must be stopped somehow, but lobbing missiles at them won't do that, although I'm not sure what will.

As it's been known for 100 years that gas masks and protective clothing save people from chemical weapons, but nothing protects civilians from bullets and bombs, from either side, the whole thing is rather hypocritical to me, Sabot. A civilian killed in Syria by someone's chemical weapon isn't more dead than a civilian killed in Pakistan by a drone strike.

It's also been known for 100 years that chemical weapons don't have to be complicated - household cleaners carelessly mixed will do the trick. So that Cameron and co were pretending that the 'rebels' don't have chemical weapons, and that they haven't used them, also makes me suspicious.

And WFT does it have to do with us, when the very rich and well-armed Arab League is on Syria's doorstep and better placed than the UK or US to bring pressure to bear to stop the civil war and give aid to civilians?

I suppose that has got to be the answer, Bonny. The Arab States should sort it out. This is mostly one sect fighting against another. Something that The West simply does not understand.
And it's nothing to do with us anyway. What makes The West the keeper of morals after the things that have been done in the name of just wars. Bloody bunch of hypocrites.
Napalm, anyone?

My friends, this was takem from The Daily Mail newspaper:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2406600/Syria-conflict-Britain-start-soul-searching-role-world-George-Osborne-stark-warning-impact-defeat-Syria.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/syria-philip-hammond-confuses-saddam-hussein-with-bashar-alassad-on-newsnight-8790892.html

With David Cameron’s shock Commons defeat on Syria sending Conservatives into disarray, it’s no surprise that Defence Secretary Philip Hammond seemed flustered on Newsnight.

However, that Mr Hammond appeared to forget who Britain had intended to strike against in Syria was even more remarkable.

The Tory minister twice referred to “ Saddam Hussein” instead of Bashar al-Assad, mixing up the Syrian leader with the former Iraqi despot who was executed in 2006 . He spoke about “deterring Saddam Hussein from further use of chemical weapons” and that “Britain should not take part in any action against Saddam Hussein”.

Mr Hammond had earlier suggested that Tony Blair was to blame for the Government losing the vote, because he had “poisoned the well” of public opinion through intervening in Iraq.

The Assad/Hussein gaffe was widely shared on social media, with one Twitter user, Andy Dawson, even making a vine of his mistake, below

[video]

Scary to think that an imbecile like that is in charge of defence, isn't it?

Oh FFS, Cameron is still demanding that something must be done, robust responses, etc.

SOMEONE MAKE HIM STOP! He's gone mad.

OMG, it only gets worse.
Yes, Tony Blair did poison the well. Or he made people wake up and see what a bunch of idiots are governing Britain. So perhaps he was of some miniscule use.

I am simply appalled.

bb1 wrote:Oh FFS, Cameron is still demanding that something must be done, robust responses, etc.

SOMEONE MAKE HIM STOP!  He's gone mad.

Well, something must. But it is not our place. Can't he get that?

He seems to think we're still a great power, or something, and that Britain should be strutting the world's stage telling fuzzy-wuzzies where they're going wrong.

When the reality is that Britain's on its knees and would struggle to defend itself thanks to him and his chums. Not to mention being in the process of splitting into different countries. Yet he imagines he was going to fire missiles at a million a pop at yet another Middle East nations when pensioners and others are in despair over his bl**dy bedroom tax?

Blindly firing missiles would not save a single Syrian civilian, it would only kill more - it always does. Though no doubt Al Quaeda and the cannibals would be delighted to see the West blowing its own feet off.

What was that about fighting battles on more than one front? Especially when you've got no army left as such.

Actually, short of expressing disgust and dismay, there really isn't any point in commenting. Although I expect I will manage.

But what I would like to know is just how committed is Ed Milliband? Or is it just sour grapes? He certainly hasn't become an astoundingly experienced statesman over night.
An eye to the next election, mayhap.

Just get rid of Cameron. He's a plonker with no idea of how real people feel. But is there anyone better?

Oh, and about my Winter Fuel Allowance.

Milliband is OK-ish, but he's a dreadful speaker, totally uninspiring.

I seriously question Cameron's sanity, Sabot, he's done some peculiar things recently. And now this - he doesn't seem to grasp that he has NO support for his crazy war. Not even from the Sun, and they're usually the first to wave the Union Jack.

If he wants to 'do something', then why not help the hundreds of thousands of poor buggers in refugee camps? The cost of one flaming Cruise missile would bring them a mountain of medical, etc., aid.

That's probably not exciting enough for him or Hague, they'd rather play Macho Man and start wars. No danger of their precious hides being damaged, though, no danger of their blood being spilled - just Syrian civilians and poor bloody squaddies who only joined up because they couldn't find work any other way.

Hague was always a pillock. Everyone knows that.

Actually, I don't know why I am so incensed. It's none of my business anymore. And I stopped voting ten years before I left UK.
As it happens, France knows a bloody sight more about Arabs than Britain ever will. And No, they aren't all bad. Mostly not, in fact. Apart from their rather peculiar attitude to women, a lot of which is fostered by the women themselves.

So what is to be done about the women and children who are dying? Sadly, nothing. Cameron seems to me to have gotten the death of his own small boy somehow mixed up with world events.
But won't it ever be interesting to see what Obama does about this.

France seems to be all set to charge in whatever the UK does, Sabot.....

I really, really want to know why they are all so keen to give aid and comfort to Al-Quaeda - none of them have managed to explain that.

Also, there are persistent rumours that the 'gas attack' was caused by the 'rebels' carelessly handling chemical weapons they had been supplied with by God knows who, and setting it off by accident in some kind of tunnel.

I don't know, who does know the truth? I do know Obama, Cameron, Hague and co are not telling the truth, though.

I don't know what you are saying, Bonny. I very much doubt that France is going to get involved. Unless the arsehole Hollande thinks he knows what he is doing.

Bad news, Sabot, the arsehole does indeed think he knows what he's doing:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23897775

France's Hollande backs US on Syria action

As I understand it, there's no-one who can stop him as he doesn't have to ask parliament?

Our guy seems to be in the saving face mode to protect that precious red line.......   

He's too young to remember that the Bay of Pigs was a disaster, so fancies doing a rerun.

I still haven't seen a single one of the warmongers make a comprehensible case for interfering; shouting Something must be done, doesn't quite cut it...

Pity they aren't putting so much effort into humanitarian aid to the hundreds of thousands of refugees...

Isn't this bothering any of them in the slightest?