We shouldn't get involved in military action and I am delighted that the Commons has voted against the government motion. However, the world cannot just sit back and do nothing if there is clear evidence that Assad (or senior members of his regime) ordered a chemical weapons attack. If that evidence exists, then everything possible must be done to get the people responsible up before the International Criminal Court.

 

Only way that could happen is a full blown invasion using soldiers, I think that that would be a major mistake and not one the public would ever support in UK and rightly so

 

 

I wonder if Craig would be so blasé about this and playing the 'none of our business' card if Assad were gassing Israelis.

 

I would support any action the israelis took in self defence provided Syrian civilians were not directly targeted by them

 

'Shock and awe' deliberate targeting of residential areas of Baghdad was a crime against humanity and should have resulted in Bush and Blair serving life sentences for genocide, I would want any israeli leader deliberately targeting Syrian civilians to face war crimes charges too

Only self-defence? Let's say Germany don't invade Poland in 1939 - at that point, would any massacres of the Jewish population therefore remain absolutely none of our business and something that we should 'leave for them to sort out'?

 

You don't get to have isolationism both ways.

Only self-defence? Let's say Germany don't invade Poland in 1939 - at that point, would any massacres of the Jewish population therefore remain absolutely none of our business and something that we should 'leave for them to sort out'?

 

You don't get to have isolationism both ways.

 

What was going on with Hitler and the jews was almost on our doorstep and was about a mentally unstable man, the stuff in Syria is about religion - 2 different variations of islam fighting each other, same as happened in Iraq

 

With Hitler it was about creating a master race with anyone who didnt fit his vision exterminated, with Syria it is an internal islamic thing and not a place for christian nations to interfere

I'm very pleased MP's voted against this. A Sun poll had the public against it too. Why should we be the world's policemen with America? Leave it to the UN now. If they do nothing then neither should we!

What was going on with Hitler and the jews was almost on our doorstep and was about a mentally unstable man, the stuff in Syria is about religion - 2 different variations of islam fighting each other, same as happened in Iraq

 

With Hitler it was about creating a master race with anyone who didnt fit his vision exterminated, with Syria it is an internal islamic thing and not a place for christian nations to interfere

 

Bollocks to that. Classifying nations and geopolitics based on which particular superstition their populations belief is backwards.

Somalia has been in civil war for over 25 years now. It had not had A GOVERNMENT for about 17 years.

 

So... why do we never hear about it? Why did the Americans leave Somalia? Indeed. No profit, no gain whatsoever.

Edited August 31, 201311 yr by compil.

I'm glad that we voted against action. Whilst what is happening in Syria is tragic I can see no way that we can actually improve the situation. There are already reports of prisoners being relocated for use as human shields to areas that would be considered targets for strikes. Syria has a decent AA capability and casualties are a risk for both our military and innocents. Lee Rigby, 9/11, 7/7 bombing and countless other crimes are already being blamed on Western policy in the middle east by the perpetrators. You cannot ut out a fire with petrol.

Until the UN can 100% relate the use of chemical attacks to one side or the other you cannot work on assumptions and probability. The British public are war weary and it is the governments job to serve the public. For Cameron backing down I congratulate him even if he ballsed it up in the first place.

 

If anything it is the UN that needs reorganising into an entity which doesn't allow parties with a vested interest to veto action that is the overwhlming choice of the member states. Had the Soviet Union not boycotted the vote and used its veto in 1950 South Korea could well have been communist. This time they are using it and the consequence is no decisive action by the UN members has any hope of success

I'm not quite sure the point at which chemical weapons are being used on civilians is one that the term 'duke it out' could really be applied to. One might as well say 'let them just get on with it' while a man's stamping the hell out of another man on the ground.

 

Aside, the argument that it was a false flag operation by the rebels is one that seems enticing at first thought but it falls apart pretty quickly. Where exactly are the rebels supposed to have gotten these weapons from? I adamantly refuse to believe the secularist Free Syrian Army would dare dream of doing this - it'd be a total bullet through any democratic credibility they'd hope to have if they won the war. If it's from the al-Qaeda affiliated likes of Jabhat al-Nusra and the intelligence has come from there, I'd be surprised that this was the first time they whipped that out if the ability to craft/ownership of that kind of weapon was something they possessed. Rocket evidence at Ghouta when cross-referenced with the thirteen other chemical attacks alleged over the last year points pretty strongly at Assad as well.

 

There's a big problem that the fundamentalists could co-opt the revolution. You're right on that. That's why intervention with the express aim of regime change would probably be a bad idea. Intervention with the express aim of preventing further crimes against humanity like those seen in Ghouta is an idea which still has credence though, and it's why I'm in favour of targeted military strikes to dissuade Assad from carrying on using these kinds of weapons. I'd like him before the ICC as well, but it's difficult to see how that could happen without an invasion.

 

But let's be real here, no-one actually believes that bombing Syria is going to stop the regime using chemical weapons (if it is the regime who used them), or that it will save any lives, or that will weaken Assad....infact, Obama/Cameron/Hollande aren't even CLAIMING that it will achieve any of that. The only reason this is going to happen is because Obama foolishly backed himself into a corner by saying chemical weapons would be a "red line" and so now he'll lose credibility in the eyes of the world if he doesn't do it. That's a TERRIBLE reason to take military action and (most likely) kill even more people than would otherwise be killed and make the civil war even worse.

Edited August 31, 201311 yr by Danny

Leaks in Sunday newspapers tomorrow that the Cabinet is calling Miliband a "f***ing c**t" privately for dithering and finally going with public opinion.

Leaks in Sunday newspapers tomorrow that the Cabinet is calling Miliband a "f***ing c**t" privately for dithering and finally going with public opinion.

That was reported yesterday. The government's response to this - apart from Cameron's public statements - has been infantile in the extreme. They have also been reported as accusing Labour of siding with Russia. So far, thankfully, Labour haven't responded by accusing the government of siding with France.

I'm glad that we voted against action. Whilst what is happening in Syria is tragic I can see no way that we can actually improve the situation. There are already reports of prisoners being relocated for use as human shields to areas that would be considered targets for strikes. Syria has a decent AA capability and casualties are a risk for both our military and innocents. Lee Rigby, 9/11, 7/7 bombing and countless other crimes are already being blamed on Western policy in the middle east by the perpetrators. You cannot ut out a fire with petrol.

Until the UN can 100% relate the use of chemical attacks to one side or the other you cannot work on assumptions and probability. The British public are war weary and it is the governments job to serve the public. For Cameron backing down I congratulate him even if he ballsed it up in the first place.

!!!

 

That's the main reason why any bombarding shouldn't happen at all.

 

To all of the people who want to help "poor Syrian people suffering from the terroristic government": are you sure that exactly the Syrian government has put the chemical weapon out? Or might it just be a usual propaganda to hide the main reasons to do that? Mind you, in UK or US or whatever government they don't think about civils being dead in Syria - they just cynically count their profits. I'm not sure why US needs this but there should be some reason(s), we just need to dig for them.

 

Having an international attack on Syria not only will cause an intervention into independent country, kill even more people but also will strain up the current political climate even more.

 

That was reported yesterday. The government's response to this - apart from Cameron's public statements - has been infantile in the extreme. They have also been reported as accusing Labour of siding with Russia. So far, thankfully, Labour haven't responded by accusing the government of siding with France.

I bet secretly Cameron is pleased that Labour put the kibosh on the whole thing.

I bet secretly Cameron is pleased that Labour put the kibosh on the whole thing.

 

And probably Obama is hoping that Congress will do the same thing, because even he knows the idea is ridiculous.

And probably Obama is hoping that Congress will do the same thing, because even he knows the idea is ridiculous.

His decision to call for a vote could be an attempt to find an escape route but it could also undermine his remaining three and a half years in office. I haven't seen any predictions on how the vote is likely to go. Certainly his statement about a red line was asking for trouble. He may have thought that statement would be enough to deter Assad and his cronies from using chemical weapons. Even if he did, he should still have had a clear strategy for what to do if that hunch was proved wrong.

 

I have had the benefit of the views of my uncle who worked in Syria for several years and the wider Middle East for a good deal longer. He suspects that Assad himself did not order a chemical weapons attack. Of course, if the order still came from within the Assad regime (still the most likely scenario) that suggests that Assad is not in full control. If he was, he would surely have got rid of the people responsible for this and other atrocities.

Frankly I wouldn't put it passed the CIA to have done it to justify regine change. I'm not saying I thinks that's what happened but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that one day given past actions.

 

Back on point, like the Russians said. If you have proof that Assad is responsible, show the world and we'll react. Yet we've seen nothing.

 

There has to be a reason why that is the case. So what is this evidence based or gained from and might it compromise secret service operatives safety?

 

 

Article in the New York Times on some of the "rebels":

 

the Syrian rebels posed casually, standing over their prisoners with firearms pointed down at the shirtless and terrified men.

 

The prisoners, seven in all, were captured Syrian soldiers. Five were trussed, their backs marked with red welts. They kept their faces pressed to the dirt as the rebels’ commander recited a bitter revolutionary verse.

 

“For fifty years, they are companions to corruption,” he said. “We swear to the Lord of the Throne, that this is our oath: We will take revenge.”

 

The moment the poem ended, the commander, known as “the Uncle,” fired a bullet into the back of the first prisoner’s head. His gunmen followed suit, promptly killing all the men at their feet.

 

This scene, documented in a video smuggled out of Syria a few days ago by a former rebel who grew disgusted by the killings, offers a dark insight into how many rebels have adopted some of the same brutal and ruthless tactics as the regime they are trying to overthrow.

 

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/05/article-2412700-1BA4604D000005DC-297_634x383.jpg

 

....

 

Across much of Syria, where rebels with Western support live and fight, areas outside of government influence have evolved into a complex guerrilla and criminal landscape.

 

That has raised the prospect that American military action could inadvertently strengthen Islamic extremists and criminals.

 

Abdul Samad Issa, 37, the rebel commander leading his fighters through the executions of the captured soldiers, illustrates that very risk.

 

Known in northern Syria as “the Uncle” because two of his deputies are his nephews, Mr. Issa leads a relatively unknown group of fewer than 300 fighters, one of his former aides said. The former aide, who smuggled the video out of Syria, is not being identified for security reasons.

 

A trader and livestock herder before the war, Mr. Issa formed a fighting group early in the uprising by using his own money to buy weapons and underwrite the fighters’ expenses.

 

His motivation, his former aide said, was just as the poem he recited said: revenge.

 

....

 

Much of the concern among American officials has focused on two groups that acknowledge ties to Al Qaeda. These groups — the Nusra Front and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria — have attracted foreign jihadis, used terrorist tactics and vowed to create a society in Syria ruled by their severe interpretation of Islamic law.

 

They have established a firm presence in parts of Aleppo and Idlib Provinces and in the northern provincial capital of Raqqa and in Deir al-Zour, to the east on the Iraqi border.

 

While the jihadis claim to be superior fighters, and have collaborated with secular Syrian rebels, some analysts and diplomats also note that they can appear less focused on toppling President Bashar al-Assad. Instead, they said, they focus more on establishing a zone of influence spanning Iraq’s Anbar Province and the desert eastern areas of Syria, and eventually establishing an Islamic territory under their administration.

 

Other areas are under more secular control, including the suburbs of Damascus. In East Ghouta, for example, the suburbs east of the capital where the chemical attack took place, jihadis are not dominant, according to people who live and work there.

 

And while the United States has said it seeks policies that would strengthen secular rebels and isolate extremists, the dynamic on the ground, as seen in the execution video from Idlib and in a spate of other documented crimes, is more complicated than a contest between secular and religious groups.

 

....

 

Mr. Issa’s former aide and two other men who have met or investigated him said he appears to assume identities of convenience.

 

But, they said, one of his tactics has been to promise to his fighters what he calls “the extermination” of Alawites — the minority Islamic sect to which the Assad family belongs, and which Mr. Issa blames for Syria’s suffering.

 

This sentiment may have driven Mr. Issa’s decision to execute his prisoners in the video, his former aide said. The soldiers had been captured when Mr. Issa’s fighters overran a government checkpoint north of Idlib in March.

 

Their cellphones, the former aide said, had videos of soldiers raping Syrian civilians and looting.

 

Mr. Issa declared them all criminals, he said, and a revolutionary trial was held. They were found guilty.

 

Mr. Issa, the former aide said, then arranged for their execution to be videotaped in April so he could show his work against Mr. Assad and his military to donors, and seek more financing.

 

The video ends abruptly after his fighters dump the soldiers’ broken bodies into a well.

 

One of the participants, a young man wearing a purple fleece jacket, looks into the camera and smiles.

 

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/mi...?pagewanted=all

 

I still don't understand why we would want to help people who openly say they hope to "exterminate" a race of people and who are committing acts as horrific as what Assad's forces are doing, even if it was possible to actually achieve it.

Edited September 5, 201311 yr by Danny

Article in the New York Times on some of the "rebels":

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/mi...?pagewanted=all

 

I still don't understand why we would want to help people who openly say they hope to "exterminate" a race of people and who are committing acts as horrific as what Assad's forces are doing, even if it was possible to actually achieve it.

 

This and the recent incident of heart eating by rebels shows we need to be very careful what we wish for.

 

It is no use getting rid of Assad and having someone else even worse take over, which given the behaviour and comments of some of the rebels is a very strong possibility.

This is nice and handy:

 

And now, with no hint of irony, the West is planning to "intervene" in Iraq by attacking the very people they wanted to side with in Syria a year ago.

 

Anyone would think they just wanted to flex their muscles and drop bombs to make themselves feel powerful...