Our Involvement In Syria...

[ellal]

I'm afraid we c

'we c' what?

seems you can't see 'c' the truth...

Where's that quoted from?

You you twonk before you edited your b*llshit post...

You're the twonk who's making up quotes. Smacks of desperation.

Ah...

So you're actually a lying b*llshit poster..

So what was that about carrying guilt around?

Oh and by the way twonk - that was from a torygraph article, so observation isn't one of your strong points either...pmsl

 

[Whitespirit66]

Isn't there an anti-capitalist demo you should be on? Rather than boring the shoite out of me with nonsense posts.

 

[ellal]

Isn't there an anti-capitalist demo you should be on? Rather than boring the shoite out of me with nonsense posts.

Is that the best you can do? - more cliched carp...lol

I suggest you address your own b*llshit posts before criticising the truth...

 

[AronSearle]

No one's invading anything. They're just on about stopping the natives killing each other.

And you think bombing assad will stop that, what a twerk.

It will achieve nothing, then we will either give up (yea, right) or deploy physical resources (invade).

 

[JBR]

No one's invading anything. They're just on about stopping the natives killing each other.

And you think bombing assad will stop that, what a twerk.

It will achieve nothing, then we will either give up (yea, right) or deploy physical resources (invade).

Hopefully, WE will do nothing, unless there's yet another U-turn. Leave the Yanks to it.

 

[sooey]

The thing is they've got 1000 tons of chemical weapons in Syria, and Assad is fighting the resistance who include al qaida fighters.
Is the world going to stand by while there's a possibilty of these scumbags getting their hands on them.
Can people remember the Tokyo subway attack with sarin gas?
I can see a situation where the west has to go in to try and secure those stockpiles before some dirty arab kills thousands in some shopping centre or sports event somewhere.

 

[wotan]

Yes then America starts a limited action, and indiscriminately hits that stockpile, and they then kill a few thousand more innocents

America peace loving nation, I don't think so!

Wotan

 

[ellal]

I can see a situation where the west has to go in to try and secure those stockpiles before some dirty arab kills thousands in some shopping centre or sports event somewhere.

You mean the chemicals that apparently we've been supplying them?
This one only came to light because of 'new measures'...How many others got through?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ort-nerve-gas-chemicals-to-syria-8793642.html

 

[sooey]

According to that article those licences were revoked and no chemicals were sent.
That's beside the point though, it doesn't matter now how they got them, but I reckon whose hands they end up in matters a lot.

 

[ellal]

According to that article those licences were revoked and no chemicals were sent.
That's beside the point though, it doesn't matter now how they got them, but I reckon whose hands they end up in matters a lot.

Hence why I said "This one only came to light because of 'new measures'...How many others got through? "...

And it does matter where they came from, since the west has effectively armed Syria to commit the atrocities we now want to punish!

So if the 'wrong type' of 'terrorists' get their hands on them, then we only have ourselves to blame to some extent...

Still I'm sure that wasn't of any concern when there was a profit to be made...

 

[wobs]

So do you take back this statement?:

You mean the chemicals that apparently we've been supplying them?

When you have provided no evidence for it?

 

[wobs]

Incidentally, an interesting article about where political allegences in Syria, compared with the US:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/09/03/obama-supporting-patriarchal-rebels-in-syria/

Spearhead is an anti-feminist site, so comes from that angle. The US Government being a pro-feminist, is looking to bomb the more liberal party in this civil war, whereas the rebels are of a more patriarchal Muslim shade of the spectrum, with some extreme factions in there.

So you bomb Assad's regime, help dipose him, and you end up with a more tradional Muslim country. Which goes against everything the US stands for.

You let Assad win, and you end up with enabling the use of chemical weapons (and mass killings) which goes against everything the US stands for, but you end up with a more liberal leader overall.

Middle East politics at its best.

 

[ellal]

So do you take back this statement?:

You mean the chemicals that apparently we've been supplying them?

When you have provided no evidence for it?

As I said, the west has apparently supplied Syria...But don't take my word for it!

Linky Linky 1

Linky Linky 2

Do you take back your post...

 

[sooey]

According to that article those licences were revoked and no chemicals were sent.
That's beside the point though, it doesn't matter now how they got them, but I reckon whose hands they end up in matters a lot.

Hence why I said "This one only came to light because of 'new measures'...How many others got through? "...

And it does matter where they came from, since the west has effectively armed Syria to commit the atrocities we now want to punish!

So if the 'wrong type' of 'terrorists' get their hands on them, then we only have ourselves to blame to some extent...

Still I'm sure that wasn't of any concern when there was a profit to be made...

You can argue against the morality of what's been done in the past as much as you like, and you would be right of course.
But who gives a fck about that now? when there's 1000 tons of deadly nerve gas which could be up for grabs by whoever gets in first once the present government collapses.
I hope that the relevant authorities are thinking that trying to get in first to secure it is a lot more important at the moment than arguing the toss about how it got there in the first place , that can be done later.

 

[ellal]

You can argue against the morality of what's been done in the past as much as you like, and you would be right of course.
But who gives a fck about that now?

Probably the majority who are now against any further foreign military 'adventures'...

I hope that the relevant authorities are thinking that trying to get in first to secure it is a lot more important at the moment than arguing the toss about how it got there in the first place , that can be done later.

Ah that's right...

Did the fact that the West armed Saddam with chemical weapons change it's policy in the aftermath of his crimes?

Of course not...So you saying "that can be done later" is pointless as history tells us time and time again...

Who will we be thinking of attacking next that we have supplied for profit beforehand?...Take your pick!