The "people" arnt the Rebels people----------------they are fighters drawn from Jihadist mobs all over the World. Toping a few hundred Syrians in order to get the "west" to supply arms to them that can be in turn used on the"west" is right on their agenda. How many weeks ago was in one of the Rebel leaders cut a POWs liver out (while he was alive) and then ate it !!! They have already used gas in attacks.
Why woul Assad let the Inspectors in the country then two days later use a chemical weapon !!!!!!!!! FFS get real.
As for Hague /Blair and We are all in this together Dave------------you f++k off over there pick up a gun and go fight---------------or better still round up all the Jihadist scumm in the UK/Europe lead them over------you want a crusade------------GO HAVE ONE.
The "people" arnt the Rebels people----------------they are fighters drawn from Jihadist mobs all over the World. Toping a few hundred Syrians in order to get the "west" to supply arms to them that can be in turn used on the"west" is right on their agenda. How many weeks ago was in one of the Rebel leaders cut a POWs liver out (while he was alive) and then ate it !!! They have already used gas in attacks.
Why woul Assad let the Inspectors in the country then two days later use a chemical weapon !!!!!!!!! FFS get real.
As for Hague /Blair and We are all in this together Dave------------you f++k off over there pick up a gun and go fight---------------or better still round up all the Jihadist scumm in the UK/Europe lead them over------you want a crusade------------GO HAVE ONE.
So what should be done. Your rant offers nothing of a solution or even attempt of that.
why on earth would you think someone on a footbal chat room/board would have a solution ? The UN/EU/USA blah blah blah cant find one or even attempt to come up with one----------other than its Assad ! when clearly your dealing with scum that dont give a shit on either siide.
Actually there was a solution in the "rant" as you put it----------- take all the interventionists and go fight over there. Happy to help pack Blair.cameron and Hagues bags for em.
Hague seems hell bent on intervention and the media here seem to be banging the drum of war for him. However I'm not sure there should be intervention for the sake of intervention-they need to carefully think about what happens post intervention.
All the planning pre the Iraq war was around how to defeat Sadams troops which given the combined might of the allied forces was almost certain, what has cost so much blood and anguish is the disaster that Iraq has become since. How many Iraqis and Britsh/American soldiers have died because there was so little post invasion planning, I really hope we don't see that again.
Happy to help pack Blair.cameron and Hagues bags for em - well said GH - another shit tip for young working class brits to die in for the masters pleasure.
Can we intervene by not helping Assad or the rebels? Both sides are foul. The rule of law needs to be restored, but and as pointed out above, there is a massive power vacuum, and the whole political system and no doubt army and police will be rotten to the core. The rebels are mercenary scum, not just the everyday Syrian public. The amount if work, money and lives involved doing a decent job in Syria will be unbelievable. If I lived there, I'd do anything I could to get the hell out. It'll end up like Somalia. Should we leave it then? depends what price you put on the humanitarian disaster that is unfolding there
Anyone else find it a little strange that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons? what I mean is whilst the whole world is watching them it begs the question as to why?
Lets first of all see what the UNI finds then asses, although time is now not on their side and If they do find out that they have used Sarin, and that's IF, then we should attack Syria without question.
If Iran and Russia want to defend Syria after this then that's up to them.
Hague said today even if no evidence found its because the Syrian govt would have destroyed it. They seem intent on attacking with or without proof even with such extremist opposition forces. It's very strange. There's no election coming up for a bit of a poll boost or any rational explanation I can see in attacking without proof. It seems very odd why some (the UK and France mainly and some elements in the USA) are so strident and eagar to attack when the results could be so bad. Some outlandish commentators have suggested the economy may be heading for big trouble (interest rate rises and money printing ending in the states) and a foreign foray is always a nice distraction and allows those schemes to keep going.
The proof that an attack has occurred is basically proven with the medical records (from an independent hospital) + the videos and accounts which would've been very difficult to stage.
The only issue now is which side caused the attack, and i'm not really sure the rebels would gas their own supporters in Damascus during the heaviest assaults of Assad's forces. Not sure what proof people are wanting, an e-mail from Assad to the military telling them to chemically attack Damascus isn't going to turn up...
I wasn't talking about whether an attack occured but who was responsible, and still no evidence either way. You don't need an email trail to gain an understanding. If no evidence gain be gained then stay the hell out. Why wouldn't the rebels do it - this is a group with heavy Al Qaeda elements we are talking about? Plus they have been losing ground recently and are suspected of having access to stockpiles and launching smaller attacks before. Plus Assad doing it just days after the UN arrived and with the upper hand seems a bit odd.
On the subject of why now - today I read the US govt reaches it's budget limit in October. Last time it happened it caused a lot of financial problems and cut the military budget by quite a few billion. What better way to extend the borrowing limit and increase military spending?
It seems possible to me that this use of chemical weapons by as far as I am concerned at the moment persons unknown is being used as the excuse that "the west" needed to use a bit more military hardware and spend a few bob buying a bit more. We all know how much money is made by arms manufacturers and their shareholders whoever that might be !!!!!!!!! There is also nothing like a bit of shock and awe footage in drumming up some more business from the nutters out there wanting this stuff and there are plenty. This next Middle East adventure is starting to stink to me.
It seems possible to me that this use of chemical weapons by as far as I am concerned at the moment persons unknown is being used as the excuse that "the west" needed to use a bit more military hardware and spend a few bob buying a bit more. We all know how much money is made by arms manufacturers and their shareholders whoever that might be !!!!!!!!! There is also nothing like a bit of shock and awe footage in drumming up some more business from the nutters out there wanting this stuff and there are plenty. This next Middle East adventure is starting to stink to me.
Chemical attacks were being used up to a year ago with no word from any western government. (Which is the reason the UN convoy are there in the first place). The only reason it is being discussed now is because the media were given images of people dying.
Agree with GH on this, why would Assad let the UN inspectors in and then launch a chemical attack close to where they are staying? Assad gains nothing from killing the innocent, it's the rebel soldiers he wants dead. I think the rebels used chemical weapons hoping the blame would fall on Assad and the west would then jump in to help them.
We have no duty going over there, leave it the f*** alone
Why is Cameron looking to take action so quickly is my question? Before the UN inspectors have carried out their full investigation, I understand they are supposed to leave on Sunday. If there is no conclusive evidence about who is responsible for the attack then you have to stay out, surely he knows that. There is too much at risk in terms of retaliation to both Syrian civilians and Western allies to be 'basically' be sure it was the Assad regime and make a strike.
My thoughts are with the innocent civilians who seem to be sandwiched between a terrible regime in power and potentially another terrible regime who want to take their place.
Iran is backing Assad. Gulf states are against Assad! Assad is against Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi. But Gulf states are pro-Sisi! Which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood! Iran is pro-Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood! Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the U.S.! Gulf states are pro-U.S. But Turkey is with Gulf states against Assad; yet Turkey is pro-Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi. And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf states!
Iran is backing Assad. Gulf states are against Assad! Assad is against Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi. But Gulf states are pro-Sisi! Which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood! Iran is pro-Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood! Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the U.S.! Gulf states are pro-U.S. But Turkey is with Gulf states against Assad; yet Turkey is pro-Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi. And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf states!
Seth I was only joking mate, Nukes will kill the planet and yes I'm ex forces.
Regarding the Middle east, this place will be still the same in 200 years mate, they'll never ever be peace there and the main reason for me is Islam and I'm no racist but I do feel it's not peaceful, it just creates misery imvho.
Look, Blair got it wrong in Iraq we all know and granted it was bad under Saddam but it's terrible now and the same will happen to Syria only it will be much worse however, I don't think we can stand by and let them use Chemical weapons because if we do then others will defiantly do the same, Cameron and Hague do look idiots but they have a point about talking a stance with Assad.
Russia could of really helped with this Syrian situation but have just sat back and let the crisis unfold, I feel uneasy about all of it if truth be told because I can see major problems coming out of it.
Why would Assad use chemical weapons when his forces are winning the civil war using conventional weapons and when he has the most to lose by using them?
Why would Assad use chemical weapons when his forces are winning the civil war using conventional weapons and when he has the most to lose by using them?
Must admit, I raised this question, maybe his forces are just plain stupid? evil? or maybe it was the rebels? like I said we don't know yet....until later this week.
Why would Assad use chemical weapons when his forces are winning the civil war using conventional weapons and when he has the most to lose by using them?
Because he knows he's basically bulletproof with Russia + China's support. Plus it's difficult to prove where the weapons come from.
Comments
Those extreemists are fkd up crazy people so if the cap fits
How many weeks ago was in one of the Rebel leaders cut a POWs liver out (while he was alive) and then ate it !!!
They have already used gas in attacks.
Why woul Assad let the Inspectors in the country then two days later use a chemical weapon !!!!!!!!! FFS get real.
As for Hague /Blair and We are all in this together Dave------------you f++k off over there pick up a gun and go fight---------------or better still round up all the Jihadist scumm in the UK/Europe lead them over------you want a crusade------------GO HAVE ONE.
Actually there was a solution in the "rant" as you put it----------- take all the interventionists and go fight over there. Happy to help pack Blair.cameron and Hagues bags for em.
All the planning pre the Iraq war was around how to defeat Sadams troops which given the combined might of the allied forces was almost certain, what has cost so much blood and anguish is the disaster that Iraq has become since. How many Iraqis and Britsh/American soldiers have died because there was so little post invasion planning, I really hope we don't see that again.
Happy to help pack Blair.cameron and Hagues bags for em - well said GH - another shit tip for young working class brits to die in for the masters pleasure.
On the subject of why now - today I read the US govt reaches it's budget limit in October. Last time it happened it caused a lot of financial problems and cut the military budget by quite a few billion. What better way to extend the borrowing limit and increase military spending?
let them sort it out themselves - nothing to do with us.
With all this killing on both sides, would none of you support sanctions onto the country then to try to force a stop to these attacks?
We have no duty going over there, leave it the f*** alone
My thoughts are with the innocent civilians who seem to be sandwiched between a terrible regime in power and potentially another terrible regime who want to take their place.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/26/the-middle-east-explained-in-one-sort-of-terrifying-chart/
Basically...
Iran is backing Assad. Gulf states are against Assad!
Assad is against Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi.
But Gulf states are pro-Sisi! Which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood!
Iran is pro-Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood!
Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the U.S.!
Gulf states are pro-U.S. But Turkey is with Gulf states against Assad; yet Turkey is pro-Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi. And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf states!
I hope this clarifies things...
FFS
At least I hope he wasn't...
Regarding the Middle east, this place will be still the same in 200 years mate, they'll never ever be peace there and the main reason for me is Islam and I'm no racist but I do feel it's not peaceful, it just creates misery imvho.
Look, Blair got it wrong in Iraq we all know and granted it was bad under Saddam but it's terrible now and the same will happen to Syria only it will be much worse however, I don't think we can stand by and let them use Chemical weapons because if we do then others will defiantly do the same, Cameron and Hague do look idiots but they have a point about talking a stance with Assad.
Russia could of really helped with this Syrian situation but have just sat back and let the crisis unfold, I feel uneasy about all of it if truth be told because I can see major problems coming out of it.