Topic: The barbarity that is Syria

[killer-heels]

So looks like we have decided to back probable military action in Syria. Although we dont know exactly what this is yet because we are waiting to be told by the clowns in the USA what that is as they all get round a table tonight.

In the meantime we have useless politicians like Kate Osamor, John Woodcock, Liz Truss spreading their pro war message all over the place.

[TepidT2O]

So looks like we have decided to back probable military action in Syria. Although we dont know exactly what this is yet because we are waiting to be told by the clowns in the USA what that is as they all get round a table tonight.

In the meantime we have useless politicians like Kate Osamor, John Woodcock, Liz Truss spreading their pro war message all over the place.

Pro war?

For me, it’s an anti war crime message.

[killer-heels]

Pro war?

For me, it’s an anti war crime message.

A message that involves blowing a load of shit up. Very anti-war that one.

[TepidT2O]

A message that involves blowing a load of shit up. Very anti-war that one.

Read what I said again.

[killer-heels]

Read what I said again.

Sorry, anti war crime message.

Its still mad. We have agreed to go into military action but we dont know what that is. We are waiting for the Yanks to tell us. Also they dont know what it is because they are still talking about it.

That sounds reassuring. If we end up going to war with Russia then these MP’s will have to be remembered for escalating this.

[killer-heels]

Kate Osmaor interview

Labour's shadow international development secretary Kate Osamor has called for Syrian President Bashar al Assad to be "removed" and that "intervention must take place" if he is found guilty of a chemical weapons attack.

In an interview with The House magazine, she says: “That person needs to be removed. I mean, intervention must take place if evidence comes back that the PM or the president or whoever the leader is, is gassing his own people. Get them out.

“But, I suppose what we've seen is it's not as easy as that. And I think that's where Jeremy [Corbyn]'s position comes from. It’s not as easy as just removing someone.

“I think that’s what needs to happen. They always seem to abscond, end up in another country. This world is messed up. It’s not easy.

"But if a leader is killing their own they need to be removed. We don’t keep them there. They need to go. He needs to be removed.

“But how do you remove someone? I’m saying this almost as a layman, but I know politically you can’t just remove somebody who is elected.”

Sounds coherent.

[TepidT2O]

Sorry, anti war crime message.

Its still mad. We have agreed to go into military action but we dont know what that is. We are waiting for the Yanks to tell us. Also they dont know what it is because they are still talking about it.

That sounds reassuring. If we end up going to war with Russia then these MP’s will have to be remembered for escalating this.

It’s the international community coming together to act against it.  The UN can’t because of russia.

Trump makes things more difficult, but can we simply continue to do nothing?

[killer-heels]

It’s the international community coming together to act against it.  The UN can’t because of russia.

Trump makes things more difficult, but can we simply continue to do nothing?

Are they really? We have agree to act based on what America tells us but we are waiting to see what that is. Does that sound coherant?

There are also many countries that have said no like Italy and Germany. We of course are lap dogging our way with our masters.

It seems to me odd that we have a whole thread criticising Trump all the time and his administration but they say we want to attack Syria and now its sensible to act with them leading the way.

Again, not resorting to force doesnt mean not doing anything.

[TepidT2O]

Are they really? We have agree to act based on what America tells us but we are waiting to see what that is. Does that sound coherant?

There are also many countries that have said no like Italy and Germany. We of course are lap dogging our way with our masters. It seems to me odd that people criticise Trump all the time and his administration but they say we want to attack Syria and now its sensible to act with them leading the way.

Again, not resorting to force doesnt mean not doing anything.

Are they? Yes. They veto every UN action on Syria.

[killer-heels]

The US National Security meeting has ended and Trump and co have still not made a decision yet.

In the meantime the UK have decided to back and join in whatever they do. When they decide what to do that is.

What an absolute joke of a bunch of politicians we have. I do hope there is a vote in parliament so i can decide which set of MP’s I will ensure i never vote for in the future or ever back. I get the feeling Ill have to jump on the pro Corbyn wagon pretty soon.

[stevensr123]

Going in now is pretty much declaring war with Russia. Fucking silly.

There was a window of opportunity maybe years ago, but Assad has pretty much "won".

When will we fucking learn, all it will result in is more death.

[classycarra]

The US National Security meeting has ended and Trump and co have still not made a decision yet.

In the meantime the UK have decided to back and join in whatever they do. When they decide what to do that is.

What an absolute joke of a bunch of politicians we have. I do hope there is a vote in parliament so i can decide which set of MP’s I will ensure i never vote for in the future or ever back. I get the feeling Ill have to jump on the pro Corbyn wagon pretty soon.

Except in your constant complaining over the last 24 hours you're actually consistently criticising the Milliband/Corbyn/Abbott policy. The policy they voted against several years ago, which would have created no fly zones preventing Assad's air force from dropping chemical weapons targeting civilians, created the circumstances that have allowed Assad and Russia to repeatedly do this repeatedly and without remorse since.

You also appear to be complaining that the UK is now going to have to follow the US's lead, and do whatever it says. Again, the people whose position you're praising now (Milliband/Corbyn/Abbott) had the chance to vote on a safe policy, led by UK and European allies like France, that would have been reversed (the US would have been the ones following the lead)

If you're anti-war (in this case grounding an air force without killing it), but not anti-attacking civilians with chemicals, I think it's fair to say 'anti-war' branding has done a number on you!

[Mutton Geoff]

Agree we need to take some action about Syria and the actions of Assad, but can our government lead this from some moral standpoint when the crisis in Yemen has similar barbaric attrocities,  with us happy to sell Arms to the Saudi's for them to use to bomb women and children in Yemen on a daily basis.

I am also wary of us hooking up to any actions the madman in Washington opts for.

[TepidT2O]

Agree we need to take some action about Syria and the actions of Assad, but can our government lead this from some moral standpoint when the crisis in Yemen has similar barbaric attrocities,  with us happy to sell Arms to the Saudi's for them to use to bomb women and children in Yemen on a daily basis.

I am also wary of us hooking up to any actions the madman in Washington opts for.

Trump is an issue.... but you kind of have to think what you’d do if he weren’t there and then trust their military to make sensible suggestions..

Possibly we can be a moderating force on him (although others have tried that before...)

[Circa1892]

Going in now is pretty much declaring war with Russia. Fucking silly.

Kind of - but equally - when push comes to shove at the very end, Russia always backs down vs USA.

The window for meaningful action is years ago. Syria will be in the history books in hundreds of years as a stain against the whole world.

[classycarra]

Kind of - but equally - when push comes to shove at the very end, Russia always backs down vs USA.

The window for meaningful action is years ago. Syria will be in the history books in hundreds of years as a stain against the whole world.

Worth noting too that Russia isn't at war with Israel or Turkey right now either

[killer-heels]

Except in your constant complaining over the last 24 hours you're actually consistently criticising the Milliband/Corbyn/Abbott policy. The policy they voted against several years ago, which would have created no fly zones preventing Assad's air force from dropping chemical weapons targeting civilians, created the circumstances that have allowed Assad and Russia to repeatedly do this repeatedly and without remorse since.

You also appear to be complaining that the UK is now going to have to follow the US's lead, and do whatever it says. Again, the people whose position you're praising now (Milliband/Corbyn/Abbott) had the chance to vote on a safe policy, led by UK and European allies like France, that would have been reversed (the US would have been the ones following the lead)

If you're anti-war (in this case grounding an air force without killing it), but not anti-attacking civilians with chemicals, I think it's fair to say 'anti-war' branding has done a number on you!

I didnt say i was against what happened (or didnt) in 2013. It probably would have been better to go in at that point. Like I said, we missed our window.

But trying to right those wrongs by risking a war with Russia so that we can feel somewhat better for ourselves is madness. Also backing an unstable American leader carte blanche right now is also crazy.

We missed our window. We need a solution another way. In the meantime we can accept more Syrian refugees rather than shunning them.

[killer-heels]

Trump is an issue.... but you kind of have to think what you’d do if he weren’t there and then trust their military to make sensible suggestions..

Possibly we can be a moderating force on him (although others have tried that before...)

You sound like the Republican party. “.....we can handle him, be a moderating influence”

[classycarra]

I didnt say i was against what happened (or didnt) in 2013. It probably would have been better to go in at that point. Like I said, we missed our window.

But trying to right those wrongs by risking a war with Russia so that we can feel somewhat better for ourselves is madness. Also backing an unstable American leader carte blanche right now is also crazy.

We missed our window. We need a solution another way. In the meantime we can accept more Syrian refugees rather than shunning them.

No-fly zones aren't "going in". And I don't really follow how you can go from being so dramatically against bombing military airstrips becaues you're anti-war, but advocate us "going in", during the siege of Allepo.

Sorry, I know you're worried, but you're being really inconsistent so it's hard to follow your current point. That's not even mentioning the bizarrely contradictory (with yourself) pro-Corbyn point

[TepidT2O]

You sound like the Republican party. “.....we can handle him, be a moderating influence”

Enough of that thank you.

[killer-heels]

No-fly zones aren't "going in". And I don't really follow how you can go from being so dramatically against bombing military airstrips becaues you're anti-war, but advocate us "going in", during the siege of Allepo.

Sorry, I know you're worried, but you're being really inconsistent so it's hard to follow your current point. That's not even mentioning the bizarrely contradictory (with yourself) pro-Corbyn point

Quite simply, I dont want us to go into Syria if it leads to a direct confrontation with Russia.

[killer-heels]

Enough of that thank you.

But everytime that line of being a moderating effect on Trump is used its laughed at. But of course in this situation because we want it to happen, lets follow him to the ends of the earth.

[TepidT2O]

But everytime that line of being a moderating effect on Trump is used its laughed at. But of course in this situation because we want it to happen, lets follow him to the ends of the earth.

Read my post.

[killer-heels]

Read my post.

What about it have I missed?

[classycarra]

Quite simply, I dont want us to go into Syria if it leads to a direct confrontation with Russia.

But you think that it's more likely to lead to a direct confrontation now, than it would have done 18 months if we'd have 'gone in' as (with benefit of hindsight) you appear to want? What's changed for you? Something on the Russian end?

[killer-heels]

But you think that it's more likely to lead to a direct confrontation now, than it would have done 18 months if we'd have 'gone in' as (with benefit of hindsight) you appear to want? What's changed for you? Something on the Russian end?

I was talking about the 2013 Syria vote. The Russians were not there then.

[bigbonedrawky]

Trump is an issue.... but you kind of have to think what you’d do if he weren’t there and then trust their military to make sensible suggestions..

Possibly we can be a moderating force on him (although others have tried that before...)

Alternative universe were Trump is'nt there, the military make sensible suggestions and the tail wags the dog

Do you think Jaysh al-Islam might of done this latest Chlorine attack or do you think its too absurd to even contemplate ?   

 
 

[cdav]

Alternative universe were Trump is'nt there, the military make sensible suggestions and the tail wags the dog

Do you think Jaysh al-Islam might of done this latest Chlorine attack or do you think its too absurd to even contemplate ?   
 

Considering that, yet again, it looks like a chemical weapon dropped from a helicopter I'd guess it limits the perpetrator to either the Syrians, the Russians or the Iranians because despite what a bunch of barbaric knobheads Jaysh al-Islam are, they don't have an airforce.

[CheshireDave]

What exactly will the US and perhaps the UK be targeting? Empty runways again? As I assume the Russians will be notified of targets beforehand. And isn't informing Russia of targets the same as informing the Syrian regime?

And why now? This isn't the first chemical attack of this conflict and we must assume won't be the last. Where's the line? Murdering a few hundred people with chemicals crosses the line but murdering hundreds of thousands with barrel bombs and God knows what else doesn't?!

[bigbonedrawky]

Considering that, yet again, it looks like a chemical weapon dropped from a helicopter I'd guess it limits the perpetrator to either the Syrians, the Russians or the Iranians because despite what a bunch of barbaric knobheads Jaysh al-Islam are, they don't have an airforce.

I haven't seen their latest youtube clip, what is it that makes it  look like it's dropped from a helicopter ?   
 
PS
They do have an airforce it consists of two old jets and no f*cker to fly them ...Apparently Mo didn't leave any instructions on how to fly anything other than a winged horse. 

[killer-heels]

Commenting on the Syria situation, Jeremy Corbyn MP, leader of the Labour Party, said:

“Further UK military intervention in Syria’s appalling multi-sided war risks escalating an already devastating conflict.

“The government appears to be waiting for instructions from President Donald Trump on how to proceed. But the US administration is giving alarmingly contradictory signals.

“Even US defence secretary James Mattis has said we “don’t have evidence” and warned further military action could “escalate out of control.

“Ministers should take their proposals, such as they are, to parliament. And Britain should press for an independent UN-led investigation of last weekend’s horrific chemical weapons attack so that those responsible can be held to account.

“Rather than further military action, what is urgently needed is a coordinated international drive to achieve a ceasefire and a negotiated settlement under UN auspices. The humanitarian priority must be to halt the killing on all sides.

“The need to restart genuine negotiations for peace and an inclusive political settlement of the Syrian conflict, including the withdrawal of all foreign forces, could not be more urgent. We must do everything we can, no matter how challenging, to bring that about.”

[killer-heels]

Also May could look to be a bit of a fool here. She has given carte blanche to the States and didnt recall MP’s back because we felt an attack was imminent. But the USA havent made a decision yet and if they dont attack this weekend then pressures to call one will be rife when MP’s return on Monday.

[nayia2002]

2003 Iraq wmd no evidence of such, Sadam terrorist bla bla.....
2013-18 Syria chemical attacks, Assad terrorist bla bla.....

The US - UK must be extremely careful of their choice of actions here as this will escalate the war to other nations(turkey, Iran, etc)

[killer-heels]

Surprise surprise. If it involves war, Tony Blair is game....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tony-blair-uk-syria-military-action-kosovo-dourma-chemical-attack-us-un-a8297336.html%3famp

[Zeb]

2003 Iraq wmd no evidence of such, Sadam terrorist bla bla.....
2013-18 Syria chemical attacks, Assad terrorist bla bla.....

The US - UK must be extremely careful of their choice of actions here as this will escalate the war to other nations(turkey, Iran, etc)

One of the compelling arguments against action last time was it would either have to be deliberately ineffective (Trump bombing empty airfields, anyone?) or it would be sufficiently effective as to lead to even greater problems (at the time ISIS was pushing through Syria, as well as there being Russian forces embedded within Assad's etc). A magical Goldilocks 'just right' response didn't exist according to the US and British military. Has anything changed there? The idea that military action is always wrong is ludicrous, but equally there has to be more to it than it appearing like a Trump temper tantrum which has no effect at all on future actions by Assad.

[killer-heels]

One of the compelling arguments against action last time was it would either have to be deliberately ineffective (Trump bombing empty airfields, anyone?) or it would be sufficiently effective as to lead to even greater problems (at the time ISIS was pushing through Syria, as well as there being Russian forces embedded within Assad's etc). A magical Goldilocks 'just right' response didn't exist according to the US and British military. Has anything changed there? The idea that military action is always wrong is ludicrous, but equally there has to be more to it than it appearing like a Trump temper tantrum which has no effect at all on future actions by Assad.

Its been a few days since Trump tweeted action and thats plenty of time for the Syrians to shift their hardware to areas where Russians presence is high. There also is a de-escalation hotline being used so why on earth would the Russians just allow the Yanks to hit key asset sites?

Hopefully sites are hit with Russian approval (not approval in public) so that our MP’s and politicians can feel better about themselves. When I hear commentators like The Guardians Jonathan Freedland state on Question Time about absolutely precise military action which hits the major assets but has no civilian or Russian casualty, I wince. Key assets, by their very nature, will have a important Russian presence.

[Libertine]

One of the compelling arguments against action last time was it would either have to be deliberately ineffective (Trump bombing empty airfields, anyone?) or it would be sufficiently effective as to lead to even greater problems (at the time ISIS was pushing through Syria, as well as there being Russian forces embedded within Assad's etc). A magical Goldilocks 'just right' response didn't exist according to the US and British military. Has anything changed there? The idea that military action is always wrong is ludicrous, but equally there has to be more to it than it appearing like a Trump temper tantrum which has no effect at all on future actions by Assad.

As many have said, the time for effective action in Syria has sadly passed (still remember the shameful cheers on the Labour benches when they won that vote - what an achievment eh?). I think this is maore about the next time and the next tyrant who will happily gas his own people - if there are no consequences to this, then what's to stop it happening again. People talk about the dangers of military action - in this case inaction will be far more dangerous in the long term.

[killer-heels]

As many have said, the time for effective action in Syria has sadly passed (still remember the shameful cheers on the Labour benches when they won that vote - what an achievment eh?). I think this is maore about the next time and the next tyrant who will happily gas his own people - if there are no consequences to this, then what's to stop it happening again. People talk about the dangers of military action - in this case inaction will be far more dangerous in the long term.

Will inaction be more dangerous in the longer term than a confrontation with Russia now?

[Zeb]

As many have said, the time for effective action in Syria has sadly passed (still remember the shameful cheers on the Labour benches when they won that vote - what an achievment eh?). I think this is maore about the next time and the next tyrant who will happily gas his own people - if there are no consequences to this, then what's to stop it happening again. People talk about the dangers of military action - in this case inaction will be far more dangerous in the long term.

The time for effective action was long past last time round. We weren't bombing Assad out of power. The lesson currently being taught to despots and tyrants is that Russia and China can and will shield you from consequences to your actions very effectively. But that's not really a new lesson. More an old one restated.

[Nobby Reserve]

As many have said, the time for effective action in Syria has sadly passed (still remember the shameful cheers on the Labour benches when they won that vote - what an achievment eh?). I think this is maore about the next time and the next tyrant who will happily gas his own people - if there are no consequences to this, then what's to stop it happening again. People talk about the dangers of military action - in this case inaction will be far more dangerous in the long term.

Given that IS were probably at the height of their military power at that time - funded & assisted by that evil, despotic bastard Erdogan and his 'business associates', as well as Qatari & Saudi klepto-petro-dollars - crippling the Assad regime may not have generated the best outcome.

The geopolitical situation and number of players with a strategic interest has always been immensely complex - but how it has been portrayed by politicians and, more especially by the dumbed-down media (sometimes following a particular editorial agenda) has rarely explained this to the general public. There are a large number of parties with an unusually disparate set of individual aims, which creates a variety of sub-conflicts.

Simplistic 'solutions' are a myth.