Sign in to follow this  
hifinutt

british strikes on syria after chemical weapons used

Recommended Posts

Super Wammer

so were we right to bomb syria after they used chemical weapons or is corbyn right . would he have allowed assad to get away with using chemical weapons? 

Air strikes on Syria were legally justified on humanitarian grounds, government documents say.

Downing Street published its legal case for military action hours after Theresa May said she was "confident" the strikes carried out by the UK, France and the US had been successful.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn described the action as "legally questionable".

Bases near Damascus and Homs were targeted in response to an alleged chemical attack on the town of Douma.

Syrian state media said the military action had been "a flagrant violation of international law", while ally Russia's President Vladimir Putin condemned it "in the most serious way".

US President Donald Trump hailed the overnight strikes as "perfectly executed", tweeting: "Mission Accomplished!".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43770102

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer

     I'm sure many of us old duffers can remember the movie "Cabaret" and the scene at the biergarten with the outburst of a patriotic song "Tomorrow belongs to me" with more and more people standing up to sing. The little bit I particularly remember is an old guy who remains sitting,  resolute and silent, as he looks around him with general distaste. His enthusiasm is obviously cooled by memories and experience of the past.

     Military action didn't work out well in Libya, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, etc., either recently or in the past (the interwar years in particular).

     How do I feel about the latest round of military intervention? A lot like that old chap in the biergarten I'd say :(    

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer

I very much suspect the recent chemical attack in Syria was a 'false flag'. There is no logical reason why Assad would of committed such an attack; it makes no sense whatsoever. It is Iraq and Libya all over again.

Unfortunately, the globalist establishment/Zionist Neocons (call them what you like) have long held a wish list of countries earmarked for regime change (there are documents which prove this) in the Middle East; Syria has always been key among them.

Unfortunately, there are next to no independent, investigative journalists operating within the MSM anymore. The high profile ones we are presented with via the TV are essentially news readers; reading from a script, presenting a particular narrative. Very few people actually think for themselves. As a consequence, it is very easy for the powers that be (establishment) to manufacture public opinion/consent via linguistics and emotion.

What is encouraging to see is more and more people now realise this to be the case. Mistrust of our media and politicians is at an all time high. The majority of the high profile players within politics and the MSM are self interested careerists, incapable of standing up for what is right and just. They are followers rather than leaders. It seems the warmongering establishment always get their own way. 

Edited by marlew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator

Yes, the Russians had it right. The gas attack was manufactured by the UK because the UK does not like Russia as all they did was to try and murder two of their own people because one was a traitor. And the UK manufactured that because......they wanted to have a falling out with Russia as opposed to arresting him. Then again we could have waited for a full investigation in Syria and a discussion in the UN and a meeting in the EU. But there would have been a real racket from Syria...Assad laughing.

The real issue is should it have gone ahead without a parliamentary discussion/agreement?  Does it meet international legality? Talking does not work with Assad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer

would we have got parliamentary approval ? personally i think its good we acted with resolve to send a clear message to assad that chemical weapons should not be used 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, marlew said:

I very much suspect the recent chemical attack in Syria was a 'false flag'. There is no logical reason why Assad would of committed such an attack; it makes no sense whatsoever. It is Iraq and Libya all over again.

Unfortunately, the globalist establishment/Zionist Neocons (call them what you like) have long held a wish list of countries earmarked for regime change (there are documents which prove this) in the Middle East; Syria has always been key among them.

Unfortunately, there are next to no independent, investigative journalists operating within the MSM anymore. The high profile ones we are presented with via the TV are essentially news readers; reading from a script, presenting a particular narrative. Very few people actually think for themselves. As a consequence, it is very easy for the powers that be (establishment) to manufacture public opinion/consent via linguistics and emotion.

What is encouraging to see is more and more people now realise this to be the case. Mistrust of our media and politicians is at an all time high. The majority of the high profile players within politics and the MSM are self interested careerists, incapable of standing up for what is right and just. They are followers rather than leaders. It seems the warmongering establishment always get their own way. 

There is virtually no way to know if it was legit or not. Perhaps in 30 or 40 years but not now. The Middle East is a basket case largely due to the interference of the West, East and any other country who want to try to have influence there. I do not see an end game in my children's lifetime. Just endless killing in the name of...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer

Three of the worlds major arms dealers get nosebleeds rushing to the moral high ground.

'right for the U K right for the world'  according to Boris  Churchill Johnson.

Not my UK not my world .

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The obvious question is when, since we do not have the might to do so, were 'we' as a country appointed to this position of arbiter of all that is just?

Basically, why are we getting involved?

Frankly, I'm not currently that sure about Corbyn, but I think he's right here. It should at the very least have been a parliamentary decision. May wants to be the Thatcher, but this is not the Falklands. This will prove to be a very bad decision IMHO.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer
24 minutes ago, rabski said:

The obvious question is when, since we do not have the might to do so, were 'we' as a country appointed to this position of arbiter of all that is just?

Basically, why are we getting involved?

Frankly, I'm not currently that sure about Corbyn, but I think he's right here. It should at the very least have been a parliamentary decision. May wants to be the Thatcher, but this is not the Falklands. This will prove to be a very bad decision IMHO.

This all day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer

!!! yet again, conviction-execution without full true facts TRUTH.

And I agree that we were right - though too late - to stop e.g. Hitler etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2018 at 22:38, rabski said:

The obvious question is when, since we do not have the might to do so, were 'we' as a country appointed to this position of arbiter of all that is just?

Basically, why are we getting involved?

If you are from one of the conciliation of the invaders countries we are morally obliged to condemn our soldiers to die in the Middle East until it is fixed. ie forever. Our governments started this, fucked it up and created the environment for it to flourish. This is going to make the two world wars look like a kindergarten fight.  :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Admin

Whats the UN's stance in all this . Or are they really just a puppet organisation ????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not too sure on this one?  Assad is winning the war and dropping chemical weapons, doesn't do anything to advance his cause.  Although sometimes terror tactics are used for no other purpose, than to intimidate the population.  If you throw Al Quada and ISIS into the mix.  Getting Russia and the West at loggerheads, would suit their agenda really well.   Do either of these outfits worry about putting civilians in danger?  From what has been reported it was a helicopter attack and a chlorine barrel bomb was used.  Unlike the Salisbury attack the bomb is easy to manufacture and a single helicopter would be easy to find.  What gives us a moral responsibility to act?  What gave us a moral responsibility to interfere in Sierra Leone?  Yet we stopped a dreadful guerilla war that left a trail of dead bodies and mutilated people all over the country.  We can all take the moral high ground when it costs nothing.  Would humanitarian concerns ever be reason enough for military intervention?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.