Current Affairs Syria...

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

Again, no one died.

What trump does is not my concern.

I think there is an acceptance that Assad will still be in charge, people are still dying though, and apparently being gassed with Chlorine.....if only Syria and Russia would let the OPCW in we could find out.....
 
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.

It must have killed you to add, and the Soviet Union on the end......
 
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.

You do realise it’s not like hitting a pile of talcum powder with a spoon. The explosive power of a cruise missile tends to generate a little bit of heat.....
 
Again, no one died.

What trump does is not my concern.

I think there is an acceptance that Assad will still be in charge, people are still dying though, and apparently being gassed with Chlorine.....if only Syria and Russia would let the OPCW in we could find out.....

Pete - if a country decides that a situation is so bad that they have to bomb another country, then to do so with the deliberate aim of not killing anyone tends to suggest that the situation wasn't as bad or as urgent as they said it was.
 
Pete - if a country decides that a situation is so bad that they have to bomb another country, then to do so with the deliberate aim of not killing anyone tends to suggest that the situation wasn't as bad or as urgent as they said it was.

Not so. If the intent is to remove an asset that could cause the death of others then it’s worthwhile. Eventually either the Israelis or Americans will bomb Iran to remove nuclear bomb making facilities. They won’t want anyone to die, but they will do it......
 
Not so. If the intent is to remove an asset that could cause the death of others then it’s worthwhile. Eventually either the Israelis or Americans will bomb Iran to remove nuclear bomb making facilities. They won’t want anyone to die, but they will do it......
I imagine that’s going to happen very soon to be fair
 
Not so. If the intent is to remove an asset that could cause the death of others then it’s worthwhile. Eventually either the Israelis or Americans will bomb Iran to remove nuclear bomb making facilities. They won’t want anyone to die, but they will do it......

So the message Iran should take is get nuclear weapons double quick, like North Korea as it acts as a deterrent.
 
'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.

Do you read what you type. Your first sentence refers only to the fact that military action by the USA would be taken. May answered correctly regarding the U.K. You then take a leap and suggest that May told the USA when to start bombing, which is not included in either of the first two sentences. Your last sentence is just you.......
 
Not so. If the intent is to remove an asset that could cause the death of others then it’s worthwhile. Eventually either the Israelis or Americans will bomb Iran to remove nuclear bomb making facilities. They won’t want anyone to die, but they will do it......

Which is just nonsense - for a start, the Israelis have been bumping off Iranian nuclear scientists for years, and when / if they do go after the Iranian nuclear facilities they are not going to look to minimize casualties at those sites.

Secondly its very telling that you said "could cause the death of others" - Assad has already killed people with his weapons, we thought there was a clear humanitarian danger, so why the focus on not killing anyone?
 
So the message Iran should take is get nuclear weapons double quick, like North Korea as it acts as a deterrent.

Indeed, although others on here have argued that having a nuclear deterrent has no effect. However, I don’t believe the USA will allow this to happen, and I’m pretty certain that Israel won’t......
 
Which is just nonsense - for a start, the Israelis have been bumping off Iranian nuclear scientists for years, and when / if they do go after the Iranian nuclear facilities they are not going to look to minimize casualties at those sites.

Secondly its very telling that you said "could cause the death of others" - Assad has already killed people with his weapons, we thought there was a clear humanitarian danger, so why the focus on not killing anyone?

The focus on not killing anyone was to ensure that Corbyn and his like and all the snowflakes couldn’t wring their hands and cry crocodile tears........
 
Well well well.



@peteblue - care to give any thoughts about someone who is one of the few very respected true journalists left and thus article from him Pete?

If it's shown that the UK has just bombed another country based on false evidence - provided in large part by a foreign office funder Syrian group, then what would your opinion be on that action and the motives?

Fascinated to hear you defend this or dismiss someone like Fisk
 
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