Current Affairs Syria...

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is a pathetic excuse, but unfortunately true.

Sanctions are not the same as banning products. Sanctions tend to be aimed at deteriorating an economy or affecting officials. In terms of products, for instance, should we continue to sell mobile phones, which can be used to detonate bombs.

If the UK’s influence is dead then you should be directing your ire at the USA or the EU.

I am in favour of a nuclear deterrent. I really wish we didn’t need one, but while these weapons exist there is no doubt that having also them gives a much greater degree of security. Had Ukraine kept hold of theirs, the Crimea and invasion of eastern Ukraine by Russia would not have happened.....

Ultimately - and they won't tell you this, but sanctions are truly aimed at hurting the innocent people ultimately, in the thinking that to do so makes the people blame the government in charge and forces either a revolution, or at least a public pressure to change their policies.

In reality it very rarely works, in some situations it has the opposite effect, can tell you this first hand, placing sanctions on Russia does absolutely zero besides to reinforce those in charge, because it sets the people imposing the sanctions as the ones doing the damage and taps into the national psyche of the Russian people and pulls them together. They best work when it is a small easily bullied country with little natural self sufficiency.

As for the nuclear deterrent, we don't need one and we never have done mate, not a single action has been prevented since having them, in fact since possessing them the UK has been involved in several conflicts and wars, the presence of a nuclear deterrent had zero bearing on the outcome of those wars on them starting or any other factor, N Korea, the Suez crisis, Falklands, Iraq, Afghanistan etc
It hasn't stopped Israel from being attacked many years ago in the past by a coalition of Arab countries either.
- as for Ukraine - why not - a civil war could most certainly have ensued in that region, what are the Ukraine going to do, launch a warhead at Donetsk or Sevastopol or Moscow? IF you think a nuclear deterrent actually would stop any civil uprising, then it begs the question - is it a outside deterrent or an internal one...
 
Because you and Russia would have told us by now.......

So you would believe the Russians now? Let's see if the area where 'Assad's chemical weapons were used' has been 'hit'.

If the US/UK/France bombed 'chemical storage facilities' they would have exploded in a cloud of chemical dust and spread far and wide. It would be a god send if the 'chemical cloud' didn't kill people.
 
Just Who’s Pulling the Strings? 1167
14 Apr, 2018 in Uncategorized by craig | View Comments

March 4 2018 Sergei and Yulia Skripal are attacked with a nerve agent in Salisbury

March 6 2018 Boris Johnson blames Russia and calls Russia “a malign force”

March 7 2018 Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman of Saudi Arabia arrives in London for an official visit

March 13 2018 Valeri Gerasimov, Russian Chief of General Staff, states that Russia has intelligence a fake chemical attack is planned against civilians in Syria as a pretext for US bombing of Damascus, and that Russia will respond militarily.

March 19 2018 Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman of Saudi Arabia arrives in Washington for an official visit

April 8 2018 Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman of Saudi Arabia arrives in Paris for an official visit

April 8 2018 Saudi funded jihadist groups Jaysh al Islam and Tahrir al-Sham and UK funded jihadist “rescue group” The White Helmets claim a chemical weapons attack occurred in their enclave of Douma the previous day – just before its agreed handover to the Syrian army – and blame the Syrian government.

April 11 2018 Saudi Arabia pledges support for attack on Syria

April 14 2018 US/UK/French attack on Syria begins.

I have always denied the UK’s claim that only Russia had a motive to attack the Skripals. To denigrate Russia internationally by a false flag attack pinning the blame on Russia, always seemed to me more likely than for the Russians to do that to themselves. And from the start I pointed to the conflict in Syria as a likely motive. That puts Saudi Arabia (and its client jihadists), Saudi Arabia’s close ally Israel, the UK and the USA all in the frame in having a powerful motive in inculcating anti-Russian sentiment prior to planned conflict with Russia in Syria. Any of them could have attacked the Skripals.

Today, Theresa May is claiming -astonishingly – that the UK attack on Syria is “to deter chemical weapons attacks in Syria and the UK”. I don’t think the motive for a Skripal false flag could be more starkly demonstrated.

We do not yet know how many children and other civilians have died so far in what the media always pretend are magically “pinpoint” attacks on Syria. Denying the “collateral damage” is part of the neo-con playbook. The danger is that they will not stop but continue to push, testing how far they can go in weakening Syrian government forces to promote their jihadist allies on the ground, before they spark a real Russian reaction. That way madness lies.

It is also worth noting that the most ardent supporters of this military action, outside Saudi Arabia and Israel, are the Blairites in the UK and the Clinton Democrats in the USA. The self-described “centrists” are actually the unhinged extremists in today’s politics.

This attack on Syria is, beyond doubt, a huge success for the machinations of Mohammed Bin Salman. Please do read my post of 8 March which sets out the background to his agenda, and I believe is essential to why we find our nations in military action again today. Despite the fact the vast majority of the people do not want this".
 
May - 'OPCW cannot say who used chemical weapons'. But 'we'll blame Assad' as he is part of the 'axis of evil' and is a staunch supporter of the Palestinian cause and wont let the US do as it pleases in the Middle East.
 
6 million Palestinian refugees, displaced by the civil war, would disagree.

The 1948 civil war I assume you mean. The majority of today’s Palestinian refugees are in other Arab countries where they are not allowed citizenship only because the Arab League have barred Arab states from granting citizenship.....so who is really responsible, yesterdays Jews or today’s Arabs......oh sorry, probably the UK’s......
 
The 1948 civil war I assume you mean. The majority of today’s Palestinian refugees are in other Arab countries where they are not allowed citizenship only because the Arab League Have barred Arab states from granting citizenship.....so who is really responsible, yesterdays Jews or today’s Arabs......oh sorry, probably the UK’s......

In 1948 there was a civil war which has resulted in 6 million Palestinian refugees dispersed through the Middle East and the wider world. Talking of UK involvement.

Britain must atone for its sins in Palestine
Ever since the Balfour Declaration of 1917, Britain has denied our people their rights
103049859_2384832b.jpg

On the run: Britain has not taken the steps to realise the establishment of a free state of Palestine Photo: Getty Images

By Nabeel Shaath

8:59PM GMT 31 Oct 2012


Over the past few weeks, British diplomats have stated that they are doing all they can to discourage Palestine’s bid for “observer state” status in the UN General Assembly. If this is an official British position, then it is reprehensible, yet not all that surprising.

Ninety-five years ago tomorrow, on November 2, 1917, British imperialism in Palestine began when Lord Balfour, the then British foreign secretary and former prime minister, sent a letter to Baron Rothschild, one of the leaders of the Zionist movement. This letter became known as the “Balfour Declaration”.

In that letter, Balfour promised British support for the Zionist programme of establishing a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. This pledge of support was made without consulting the indigenous Christian and Muslim inhabitants of Palestine, the Palestinian people. And it was made before British troops had even conquered the land.

Balfour, on behalf of Britain, promised Palestine – over which Britain had no legal right – to a people who did not even live there (of the very small community of Palestinian Jews in Palestine in 1917, very few were Zionists). And he did so with the worst of intentions: to discourage Jewish immigration to Britain. No wonder Lord Montagu, the only Jewish member of the Cabinet, opposed the declaration.

And yet, just two years earlier, Britain had committed herself to assisting the Arab nations in achieving their independence from the Ottoman Empire. Arab fighters all over the region, including thousands of Palestinians, fought for their freedom, allowing Britain to establish her mandate in Palestine.

From that moment, Palestine became the victim of colonial conspiracies. The Balfour Declaration helped to encourage Zionist immigration into Palestine and away from America and Western Europe. Concomitantly, Britain repressed Palestinian nationalism, which was exemplified by its crushing of the Arab revolt of 1936-1939 and the denial of the right of the Palestinian people to express their will through their own representation. In fact, Britain suppressed Palestinian political representation through a policy of systematic denial of Palestinian political rights.

The dying days of Britain’s rule in Palestine were marked by destruction, blood, and the start of the Palestinian exile, meaning the expulsion of the majority of the Palestinian people against the backdrop of Zionist terrorism. It was not the Palestinians who blew up the King David Hotel, who blew up the British Embassy in Rome, who tried to assassinate Ernest Bevin, Britain’s foreign secretary, and who succeeded in assassinating Lord Moyne, British minister of state in the Middle East. That was the Irgun, an ideological Right-wing group – and the predecessor to Israel’s ruling Likud Party.

The British mandate was supposed to deliver independence to Palestine through the establishment of representative institutions. It was never meant permanently to thwart Palestinian national aspirations. Nor was it ever envisaged that the British mandate would end with a catastrophe in the form of the expulsion of the majority of the Palestinian people from their homeland.

When Britain decided to relinquish Palestine to the UN in 1947, she was well aware that the Zionist movement was well established and equipped, while Palestinians were still healing from the effects of British colonialism during the years of the revolt.

Since the Palestinian catastrophe of 1948, during which approximately two thirds of the Palestinian people, Christians and Muslims, were expelled to become refugees, Britain has not done anything substantially to repair the suffering it has caused to the Palestinians. Britain has not met its historic responsibility. Successive British administrations have avoided repairing this injustice by making statements of goodwill instead of taking actions to end the Israeli occupation and support the Palestinian right to self-determination.

It is unacceptable that today, 65 years after the partition of Palestine, the UK has recognised the state of Israel but not the state of Palestine. It is unacceptable that, having invested large human and economic resources in the development of Palestinian institutions, the UK has not taken the necessary political and diplomatic steps to realise the establishment of a free and independent state of Palestine. Rather than continuing down this path, the UK, more than any other state, should stand behind the Palestinian endeavour towards the fulfilment of their national rights and aspirations, through supporting its application for enhancement of status at the UN.

Some argue that Palestine’s recognition and enhanced status will not immediately end the occupation. None the less, it is a step in the right direction towards a peaceful solution, and it sends a strong message to Israel that the world will no longer tolerate its illegal and oppressive policies. For a country with the historic responsibility that the UK carries towards Palestine, a victim of British colonialism, this should be the least we can expect in order to repair decades of occupation and exile.

Dr Nabeel Shaath is a member of the PLO Political Committee and Fatah Central Committee, and is a former Palestinian foreign minister.

The UK, the US, France and the Soviet Union bare responsibility for the situation in Palestine.
 
i) The powers only attacked and blew up chemical development and storage sites, no one died. Surely this is good.
ii)Totally agree. We should never abandon people who have served our country
iii) This is what the U.N. have tried to do but Russia keeps using a veto to stop this, so how do we move forward.

i) this is what May has been saying today, but it is an absurd justification for a use of military force and it doesn't really address the regimes' use of chemical weapons.

If you think you need to save lives and that you are justified to fire more than a hundred missiles at a country then surely you accept that you will kill people; indeed one might think that killing the people who create and deliver the weapons is the point. It was a different war of course, but when the RAF levelled Peenemunde in 1943 it was with the deliberate intention of killing as many of the vital rocket scientists as possible, and they were right to do so because it was far harder for the Nazis to replace them than it was for them to replace the equipment.

As for the development and storage sites, I'd point out that even the official narrative concedes that Assad's forces use chlorine far more than they do other agents; no chlorine facilities were targetted.

ii) sadly Trump looks like he is about to, and the way in which the media and the political class have utterly ignored the murder of Sgt. Tonroe a couple of weeks ago would suggest that we are too.

iii) we haven't tried to negotiate like that - our precondition has almost always been that Assad and his regime step down and then talks can begin; that didn't work even when they were on the verge of defeat so now that he is winning it will never happen.
 
Failed PM Duncan Smith 'OPCW being hindered and moving of evidence'. Who told him? Peter Wilson the UK Ambassador to the Netherlands and the OPCW UK representative, who said Russia had got rid of its chemical weapons in October 2017. But now he reveals the information he has had for 10 years, saying that the Russians did in fact have 'Novichok' and still do. And that he has found a Russian dossier that shows how it should be applied.
 
The dictatorship of the executive is in full swing. The 'will of the people' house of commons has just become irrelevant and the 'mother of all parliament' is redundant. Any semblance of democracy has just flown out the window.
 
The dictatorship of the executive is in full swing. The 'will of the people' house of commons has just become irrelevant and the 'mother of all parliament' is redundant. Any semblance of democracy has just flown out the window.

I'd like to than Chris Leslie for by far the daftest response of the debate so far, in which he called for those who turned a blind eye to suffering to be held to account - presumably not including himself (he voted No in the August 2013 vote).
 
'At what point did the President instruct her that military action would be taken', Laura Smith.

May, 'The answer ..is at no point at all, I took the decision'.

What, May told Trump when to start the bombing. The US public will be glad to hear that it is May that controls US foreign policy. The lady's no Trump poodle. Donald jumps to Theresa's tune like a puppet on a string.
 
I'd like to than Chris Leslie for by far the daftest response of the debate so far, in which he called for those who turned a blind eye to suffering to be held to account - presumably not including himself (he voted No in the August 2013 vote).

He only got up to have a go at Corbyn as did the failed leadership candidate, Kendall.
 
There is always an issue in relation to the likes of arms sales, technologies and indeed chemicals. The problem we face though is that if we don’t sell them someone else will and then our political influence as well as our economy suffers, which the would affect our ability to do any good in the world. If you made a list of components and products that could not be exported because someone will reconfigure, mix, or abuse them, then the list would probably include everything that the U.K. produces.....

Like the cotton buds that were part of Iraqi sanctions?
 
Just to lighten the mood a little...



Hahahahaha....that was like something out of the life of Brian........he’s been a very naughty boy......

Dear god where do they find these people. Strangely enough this ‘stop the war’ group have never demonstrated near the Russian Embassy while they were bombing Syrians.......
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top