Meanwhile, In Syria
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
This is the key paragraph from the Craig Murray article."The lesson the neo-cons learnt from the Iraq war is not that it was disastrous. It was only disastrous for the dead and maimed Iraqis, our own dead and maimed servicemen, and those whose country was returned to medievalism. It was a great success for the neo-cons, they made loads of money on armaments and oil. The lesson the neo-cons learned was not to give the public in the West any time to mount and organise opposition. Hence the destruction of Libya was predicated on an entirely false “we have 48 hours to prevent the massacre of the population of Benghazi” narrative. Similarly this latest orchestrated “crisis” is being followed through into military action at a blistering pace, as the four horsemen sweep by, scything down reason and justice on the way."
I get the feeling that the vast majority of people do not understand the real danger present in Syria at the moment. This is beginning to feel like a modern Cuban crisis, but without any true statesman at the wheel of the united States.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Wednesday 11th April 14:41
andy_s said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What I don't understand is this.
Of all the combatants in the Syrian conflict, only IS have exploded bombs in Britain, and killed British citizens. So why are we talking about striking at their enemies, and not them?
Because people only believe in 'goodies' and baddies', the govt. of the day decides who is what depending on what they want to do. Any scenario more complicated than goodies vs baddies is either simplified or lied about. Of all the combatants in the Syrian conflict, only IS have exploded bombs in Britain, and killed British citizens. So why are we talking about striking at their enemies, and not them?
When these narratives collide, as in Syria, things get tricky as now there are good baddies and bad goodies and people don't know what to think and it also makes doing things on behalf of people difficult as now opinions may start to vary which may undermine the govt.s efforts to, you know, show themselves taking 'decisive action', or any action, against the baddie de jour.
Best way out of that is avoid difficult questions like this, concentrate rage at the biggest baddie everyone understands (even if he was courted by the west, western educated, pals with Blair, Bush and Sarkozy oh but a few short years ago - Assad this is, not Qaddafi...) and try to do something without ever doing too much...
If we take IS as our biggest enemy, this would then allow us to be friends with Assad and Russia. But we've decided Russia are our biggest enemy, hence we'll help IS by fighting Assad.
I think we need a referendum. Who are the biggest bunch of
s? It's a lot simpler than Brexit. Assad/Putin/IS. Once the British public has decided, who can get into bed with their enemy in all good conscience. And even sell them the chemical weapons to kill their own citizens, which we happily did with Saddam. eharding said:
TheJimi said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
That article stops just short of saying "WW3 IS ABOUT TO START!"Burwood said:
eharding said:
TheJimi said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
That article stops just short of saying "WW3 IS ABOUT TO START!"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberatio...
TwigtheWonderkid said:
For years British foreign policy was based on a very simple premise, the enemy of our enemy was our friend. Hence Thatcher sucked up to Saddam Hussein when he was fighting Iran, and we supported Islamic militants in Afghanistan when they were fighting the Soviets. It's a policy that served us well, and allowed us to get rich selling arms to some of the world's vilest tinpot despots.
If we take IS as our biggest enemy, this would then allow us to be friends with Assad and Russia. But we've decided Russia are our biggest enemy, hence we'll help IS by fighting Assad.
I think we need a referendum. Who are the biggest bunch ofs? It's a lot simpler than Brexit. Assad/Putin/IS. Once the British public has decided, who can get into bed with their enemy in all good conscience. And even sell them the chemical weapons to kill their own citizens, which we happily did with Saddam.
You can't put the sIf we take IS as our biggest enemy, this would then allow us to be friends with Assad and Russia. But we've decided Russia are our biggest enemy, hence we'll help IS by fighting Assad.
I think we need a referendum. Who are the biggest bunch of
s? It's a lot simpler than Brexit. Assad/Putin/IS. Once the British public has decided, who can get into bed with their enemy in all good conscience. And even sell them the chemical weapons to kill their own citizens, which we happily did with Saddam. t back in the donkey Twig, in my mind we should have supported Assad - if indeed we should have had any actionable opinion in another country's domestic affairs. But this was the brave new dawn of the Arab Spring - from which would spring forth multiple friendly, free, capitalist democratic governments - you know - good guys; like the old good guys but better because 'democratic'. Yeah, that worked out well...TwigtheWonderkid said:
What I don't understand is this.
Of all the combatants in the Syrian conflict, only IS have exploded bombs in Britain, and killed British citizens. So why are we talking about striking at their enemies, and not them?
I feel for Syrian children being gassed by Assad (if indeed he did it). When we've dealt with the scum that blew British children to bits in Manchester, their plight will certainly move up the agenda.
Well technically Russia launched an attack on British soil in Salisbury.Of all the combatants in the Syrian conflict, only IS have exploded bombs in Britain, and killed British citizens. So why are we talking about striking at their enemies, and not them?
I feel for Syrian children being gassed by Assad (if indeed he did it). When we've dealt with the scum that blew British children to bits in Manchester, their plight will certainly move up the agenda.
PRTVR said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What I don't understand is this.
Of all the combatants in the Syrian conflict, only IS have exploded bombs in Britain, and killed British citizens. So why are we talking about striking at their enemies, and not them?
I feel for Syrian children being gassed by Assad (if indeed he did it). When we've dealt with the scum that blew British children to bits in Manchester, their plight will certainly move up the agenda.
Well technically Russia launched an attack on British soil in Salisbury.Of all the combatants in the Syrian conflict, only IS have exploded bombs in Britain, and killed British citizens. So why are we talking about striking at their enemies, and not them?
I feel for Syrian children being gassed by Assad (if indeed he did it). When we've dealt with the scum that blew British children to bits in Manchester, their plight will certainly move up the agenda.
funkyrobot said:
PRTVR said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What I don't understand is this.
Of all the combatants in the Syrian conflict, only IS have exploded bombs in Britain, and killed British citizens. So why are we talking about striking at their enemies, and not them?
I feel for Syrian children being gassed by Assad (if indeed he did it). When we've dealt with the scum that blew British children to bits in Manchester, their plight will certainly move up the agenda.
Well technically Russia launched an attack on British soil in Salisbury.Of all the combatants in the Syrian conflict, only IS have exploded bombs in Britain, and killed British citizens. So why are we talking about striking at their enemies, and not them?
I feel for Syrian children being gassed by Assad (if indeed he did it). When we've dealt with the scum that blew British children to bits in Manchester, their plight will certainly move up the agenda.
PRTVR said:
funkyrobot said:
PRTVR said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What I don't understand is this.
Of all the combatants in the Syrian conflict, only IS have exploded bombs in Britain, and killed British citizens. So why are we talking about striking at their enemies, and not them?
I feel for Syrian children being gassed by Assad (if indeed he did it). When we've dealt with the scum that blew British children to bits in Manchester, their plight will certainly move up the agenda.
Well technically Russia launched an attack on British soil in Salisbury.Of all the combatants in the Syrian conflict, only IS have exploded bombs in Britain, and killed British citizens. So why are we talking about striking at their enemies, and not them?
I feel for Syrian children being gassed by Assad (if indeed he did it). When we've dealt with the scum that blew British children to bits in Manchester, their plight will certainly move up the agenda.
aeropilot said:
lord trumpton said:
I know 'we' don't know who carried out the attack but our government have access to information at the very highest level. I'd like to think any decisions from France and UK are based on facts that are not in the public domain.
You mean like the infamous Iraq WMD dossier that Blair told everyone was "the whole truth and nothing but the truth"........
As others have said, this situation is really fked up. Are we (as in the UK armed forces) really being asked to side with the people who practice the same kind of Islam as the killers of Lee Rigby, the London Bridge and Manchester Arena attacks?
Something stinks about all of this, none of it make real sense - but to someone, it does!
ked up. Are we (as in the UK armed forces) really being asked to side with the people who practice the same kind of Islam as the killers of Lee Rigby, the London Bridge and Manchester Arena attacks?Something stinks about all of this, none of it make real sense - but to someone, it does!
Trevatanus said:
PRTVR said:
funkyrobot said:
PRTVR said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What I don't understand is this.
Of all the combatants in the Syrian conflict, only IS have exploded bombs in Britain, and killed British citizens. So why are we talking about striking at their enemies, and not them?
I feel for Syrian children being gassed by Assad (if indeed he did it). When we've dealt with the scum that blew British children to bits in Manchester, their plight will certainly move up the agenda.
Well technically Russia launched an attack on British soil in Salisbury.Of all the combatants in the Syrian conflict, only IS have exploded bombs in Britain, and killed British citizens. So why are we talking about striking at their enemies, and not them?
I feel for Syrian children being gassed by Assad (if indeed he did it). When we've dealt with the scum that blew British children to bits in Manchester, their plight will certainly move up the agenda.
If the Russians didn't do it who had access to a complex nerve agent ?
Trevatanus said:
Like they knew that Iraq could launch WMD in 45 minutes you mean?
Exactly. I'd need to see some damning evidence before I trust a Politician or Military Man telling me what they want me to believe.
Suspicion is all well and good, but to invade a foreign Nation the evidence must come with such clear clarity nowadays that no-one can reasonably deny it.
The UK and USA Public have been burned by failures to provide such before...surely the Electorate must demand absolute certainty to avoid a repeat!
chris watton said:
As others have said, this situation is really fked up. Are we (as in the UK armed forces) really being asked to side with the people who practice the same kind of Islam as the killers of Lee Rigby, the London Bridge and Manchester Arena attacks?
It's not like we're fighting on the side of the democrats against the monarchist dictator either. If the rebels win in Syria it'll be an Islamic-type state in all but name. You'd have thought we'd have learnt by now that backing Taliban-type fighters can't possibly end well for us.ked up. Are we (as in the UK armed forces) really being asked to side with the people who practice the same kind of Islam as the killers of Lee Rigby, the London Bridge and Manchester Arena attacks?Coolbanana said:
Exactly. I'd need to see some damning evidence before I trust a Politician or Military Man telling me what they want me to believe.
Suspicion is all well and good, but to invade a foreign Nation the evidence must come with such clear clarity nowadays that no-one can reasonably deny it.
The UK and USA Public have been burned by failures to provide such before...surely the Electorate must demand absolute certainty to avoid a repeat!
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice..PRTVR said:
funkyrobot said:
PRTVR said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What I don't understand is this.
Of all the combatants in the Syrian conflict, only IS have exploded bombs in Britain, and killed British citizens. So why are we talking about striking at their enemies, and not them?
I feel for Syrian children being gassed by Assad (if indeed he did it). When we've dealt with the scum that blew British children to bits in Manchester, their plight will certainly move up the agenda.
Well technically Russia launched an attack on British soil in Salisbury.Of all the combatants in the Syrian conflict, only IS have exploded bombs in Britain, and killed British citizens. So why are we talking about striking at their enemies, and not them?
I feel for Syrian children being gassed by Assad (if indeed he did it). When we've dealt with the scum that blew British children to bits in Manchester, their plight will certainly move up the agenda.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff