Current Affairs Syria...

[Tubey]

Everything you pointed out were his ambitions exist more or less now. If you struggle with that then you need to re-evaluate your interpretation of the world around you.

Yes, I need to re-evaluate my position on this.

Not the guy who believes a man who wanted to ethnically slaughter and/or enslave literally millions upon millions of people for lebensraum of the Aryan race, eradicating the Jewish religion as well as the disabled and homosexuals amongst others, wouldn't have affected the world in any way if he'd have won dominion over Europe after World War 2...

No, it's definitely, definitely me who's wrong.

 

[magicjuan]

Yes, I need to re-evaluate my position on this.

Not the guy who believes a man who wanted to ethnically slaughter and/or enslave literally millions upon millions of people for lebensraum of the Aryan race, eradicating the Jewish religion as well as the disabled and homosexuals amongst others, wouldn't have affected the world in any way if he'd have won dominion over Europe after World War 2...

No, it's definitely, definitely me who's wrong.

Welcome to Damascus.

 

[Tubey]

Welcome to Damascus.

Oh yes, definitely the same as Generalplan Ost. You've got me there.

 

[dholliday]

Ahh just my style, been told that before. It's not intended - but opinions are something you believe it right, so that's why I come across strongly in support of the opinion. I always try and back up what I say with supporting evidence to be fair - e.g. the UN report, noting it didn't directly cite blame but informally did so, as evidenced by the aftermath.

If you believe Assad hasn't used chemical weaponry, that's your view - I personally can't see why you'd come to that conclusion but so be it; it's an opinion.

Let's try it this way:

for argument's sake, let's say Assad as a fact did do these chemical attacks. Then why are these attacks worse than when USA bomb hospitals? USA have done this at least twice...intentionally. They not only killed lots of kids & women, they also destroyed the hospitals. With chemical attacks, at least vital infrastructure remains intact, not to mention there is less collateral damage from unstable walls/ceilings.

You say we must do something, as that is better than doing nothing. Shall we bomb another hospital?

 

[MrPerfectNot]

Let's try it this way:

for argument's sake, let's say Assad as a fact did do these chemical attacks. Then why are these attacks worse than when USA bomb hospitals? USA have done this at least twice...intentionally. They not only killed lots of kids & women, they also destroyed the hospitals. With chemical attacks, at least vital infrastructure remains intact, not to mention there is less collateral damage from unstable walls/ceilings.

You say we must do something, as that is better than doing nothing. Shall we bomb another hospital?

Source?

 

[edge]

We should keep out of it as normal we will not.
Said right at the beginning of all this the only outcome would be the Assat government winning and nothing has changed .
Rebels haven't a clear structure or one type of government on offer so who are we backing?

 

[Tubey]

Let's try it this way:

for argument's sake, let's say Assad as a fact did do these chemical attacks. Then why are these attacks worse than when USA bomb hospitals? USA have done this at least twice...intentionally. They not only killed lots of kids & women, they also destroyed the hospitals. With chemical attacks, at least vital infrastructure remains intact, not to mention there is less collateral damage from unstable walls/ceilings.

You say we must do something, as that is better than doing nothing. Shall we bomb another hospital?

I have no idea what the point you are trying to make is here?

That's not trying to deflect either; I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to make a comparison between. Why would I want to bomb a hospital because Assad used chemical weapons?

 

[Tubey]

Source?

There was definitely one a few years back Obama apologised for. They did it intentionally based on flawed info on the ground I believe.

But yes, the idea that the US intentionally going round bombing hospitals is weird. That's why I don't get the point he's making - an erroneous US missile strike isn't exactly akin to a chemical weapon attack by Assad. One's definitely not accidental and an automatic war crime for starters.

 

[peteblue]

Let's try it this way:

for argument's sake, let's say Assad as a fact did do these chemical attacks. Then why are these attacks worse than when USA bomb hospitals? USA have done this at least twice...intentionally. They not only killed lots of kids & women, they also destroyed the hospitals. With chemical attacks, at least vital infrastructure remains intact, not to mention there is less collateral damage from unstable walls/ceilings.

You say we must do something, as that is better than doing nothing. Shall we bomb another hospital?

Well like it or not, some types of weapons have been agreed by the international community as being ‘acceptable’. Some weapons, cluster bombs, chemical weapons, have been deemed unacceptable or illegal. So if someone uses an unacceptable or illegal weapon then the international community should respond, otherwise it’s pointless. Russia pretends to be part of the international community yet turns a blind eye or even uses such weaponry. For the people, the final outcome may be the same, but the suffering they go through may differ, and that’s the point......

 

[dholliday]

Why would I want to bomb a hospital because Assad used chemical weapons?

Because we must do something

@MrPerfectNot

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...p-bombing-syria-as-us-airstrike-kills-dozens/

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/08/america-is-bombing-the-hell-out-of-syrian-civilians/

 

[Tubey]

Because we must do something

@MrPerfectNot

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...p-bombing-syria-as-us-airstrike-kills-dozens/

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/08/america-is-bombing-the-hell-out-of-syrian-civilians/

Firstly, your first link was actually Assad/Russia.

Second, you are either deliberately not understanding what I'm typing or not reading it at all. "Doing something" doesn't mean bombing hospitals for a laugh - I'm saying you plan to do something, then do it if the circumstance arises. As it stands, we've been afraid to even plan for military intervention because the public are so set against it due to mistakes of the past in Iraq. So we're hamstrung.

I can't put it clearer than that - my view is we should be able to plan and respond accordingly to events like this, especially when they cross the line of chemical weaponry being deployed, because if you ignore it then you effectively condone it.

 

[peteblue]

Anyway, whether you are for or against it. We shall shortly see whether the USA cruise missiles can penetrate the S400 defensive shield. Both NATO and Russia want to see what happens, and either the military providers to the west or Russia’s military industry will be getting a large development bonanza.......

 

[Jib in lad]

Anyway, whether you are for or against it. We shall shortly see whether the USA cruise missiles can penetrate the S400 defensive shield. Both NATO and Russia want to see what happens, and either the military providers to the west or Russia’s military industry will be getting a large development bonanza.......

Disgusting isn't it, sick bastards.

 

[tsubaki]

Well like it or not, some types of weapons have been agreed by the international community as being ‘acceptable’. Some weapons, cluster bombs, chemical weapons, have been deemed unacceptable or illegal. So if someone uses an unacceptable or illegal weapon then the international community should respond, otherwise it’s pointless. Russia pretends to be part of the international community yet turns a blind eye or even uses such weaponry. For the people, the final outcome may be the same, but the suffering they go through may differ, and that’s the point......

The problem you have with this pete is twofold - firstly that there is nothing in international law that allows the international community to act when a country uses such weapons, largely because of the fear that the wrong country (ie: Saudi, Israel, the US, Russia in this case) might fall foul of it and the international order collapses as a result.

Secondly it is an absolutely absurd line to draw, that gassing a load of kids is completely wrong but landing an artillery shell in their midst isn't.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

We should keep out of it as normal we will not.
?

It will be nothing to do with post Brexit trade deal, May kowtowing to Trump..