Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It's horrific, and both sides are c****, poor people in the middle

 

 

 

This hypocrite c*** though can f***

 

https://twitter.com/hassony77/status/849301205650157570

 

This latest atrocity is simply horrifying. Beyond words.

 

It's wrong to portray the conflict as between two side who have equally committed atrocities.

 

(Unless you're talking about Isis; but that's effectively a separate war).

 

On the one side are people trying to free themselves from a 40 year dictatorship. On the other, the utter brutality of the Assad regime. The vast majority of civilian casualties have been by Assad. The chemical weapons. The barrel bombs. The use of starvation. The targeting of hospitals. (Every single hospital in opposition territory has been bombed).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Weapons inspectors were due to investigate the chemical attack in Syria but, unfortunately, it looks like a lot of the evidence may have been destroyed by these attacks.

 

And the BBC reporting that May pushed for these attacks now so that she did not have to go through Parliamentary scrutiny. The BBC seem to think that this is a good thing and that she did the right thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Weapons inspectors were due to investigate the chemical attack in Syria but, unfortunately, it looks like a lot of the evidence may have been destroyed by these attacks.

 

And the BBC reporting that May pushed for these attacks now so that she did not have to go through Parliamentary scrutiny. The BBC seem to think that this is a good thing and that she did the right thing.

Funnily enough, Matty thinks the same thing

Link to post
Share on other sites

weird how quickly moderates line up behind extreme actions

Someone on Twitter (can't remember who on my timeline) nailed it the other day. There's a genuine fear in Britain that we don't actually stand for anything than these token tough police actions. All we do now on a world stage is follow.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Asked this in a different thread, but wanted to ask again here: Why would Assad risk international retaliation (i.e what has happened) by using chemical weapons, when together with Russia he's close to winning the civil war? It just doesn't make sense. 

 

And the level of propaganda on all sides means it's almost impossible to have any sense of objective truth. I honestly don't know if this chemical attack was just re-hashed footage from a different attack, or was Assad, or was carried out by these 'slightly less fundamentalist Islamic freedom fighters' against their own in order to try to pull the West in more. Thw West backing Islamic fundamentalists as part of a proxy war against Russia has worked so well in the past too...

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Being a parent hasn't softened you to wanting to stop chemical weapons being used on kids? There are no other solutions"

Edit - bit s***house to talk about him when he's not here. Edited by Bailo
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a wealth of evidence indicating that the attacks were carried out by the regime that is specific to this event in particular. (See here https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/syria/full-text-french-declassified-intelligence-report-on-syria-gas-attack-1.5995544 ). More broadly - the use of chemical weapons has been a repeated tactic of the regime. They use it because it is militarily effective and has a broader goal of terrorising civilians in opposition held territories. (Imaging living in an area that might be attacked by those weapons!) I don't know of any serious Syria expert who doubts the regime carried out the chemical attack; even Alex Cockburn, who is notorious for his pro-regime sympathies, has reported that all the evidence points to Assad. There are various attempts to spread doubt and spread counter-theories. But all existing evidence points to the regime's culpability.

 

The fact that the regime is responsible does not mean that everyone has to support military intervention. There are reasonable arguments against it. But it should be debated on the understanding that the overwhelming likelihood that the regime is responsible.

 

Too often missing from the debate is the perspective of Syrians. There are a huge number of brilliant Syrian activists and they are generally left out of the debate. Here are a few well worth reading.

 

Haid Haid - brilliant about the non-violent resistance of Syrian groups against both ISIS and Assad

 

A great article from today, from a British-Syrian human rights activist Leila Al Shami: https://leilashami.wordpress.com/2018/04/14/the-anti-imperialism-of-idiots/ 

 

Also worth following - Hassan Akkad, Syrian activist previously tortured in Assad's prisons, now a refugee here in the UK. His debate with Simon Jenkins on C4 news is really worth watching. The smug isolationism of Jenkins ('it's not our problem') is so ugly. (He was actually interviewed by Adam Buxton on his podcast a few months back - well worth a listen)

 

Rami Jarrah - https://twitter.com/RamiJarrah 

 

Syrian Marxist Yassin Al Haj Salah - good for more in-depth analysis. Review of his book here: https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/comment/2017/8/10/yassin-al-haj-salehs-the-impossible-revolution-an-incisive-work 

 

Hassan Hassan - very well connected on the political/military side of things https://twitter.com/hxhassan 

 

A good thread from a well-connected Israeli journalist with Syrian reactions to the bombings (from a range of perspectives):

 

https://twitter.com/Elizrael/status/984987670303690753

Link to post
Share on other sites

This latest atrocity is simply horrifying. Beyond words.

 

It's wrong to portray the conflict as between two side who have equally committed atrocities.

 

(Unless you're talking about Isis; but that's effectively a separate war).

 

On the one side are people trying to free themselves from a 40 year dictatorship. On the other, the utter brutality of the Assad regime. The vast majority of civilian casualties have been by Assad. The chemical weapons. The barrel bombs. The use of starvation. The targeting of hospitals. (Every single hospital in opposition territory has been bombed).

Problem is, if you imagine what a victory for the rebels looks like, it may be no better than what existed under the Assad regime

 

If you had a UN fit for purpose then this, and all similar conflicts would be resolved and true democracy implemented

but it’s too expensive and not catchy enough to win votes and justify to the folks back home

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gross windbag, Andrew Rawnsley, has claimed that the horrors in Syria are solely due to non-interventionists i.e. Corbyn, but his argument appears to be 'well, the interventionists took the blame for Iraq, so it is your turn to take the blame now.' When he says that we should have intervened, I think he is forgetting that we did actually intervene with the MOD admitting that we have spent £2.5 billion (3500 bombs and missiles) so far before the latest round of attacks (The US has spent over $11 billion). So, as ever, Rawnsley is talking s***.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Assad has repeatedly used chemical weapons against his own people, is taking limited military action to destroy that capability extreme?

In theory, no

But in practice....

See Iraq for the effects of a full military solution

Is Iraq (and the world) better or worse following the action against Sadam?

And bombing missile sites wont stop the manufacture and use of chemical weapons

You could have a full military solution and topple Assad and obv the c*** deserves it but what then?

Syria has a ridiculously complicated societal structure and there’s no reason to think it would be peace and harmony post Assad

Would need a massive amount of support afterwards, which is what the UN is there to do of course, but they don’t do it

Edited by Molby
Link to post
Share on other sites

You moralising over the plight of Syria after referring to their citizens as savages comes off a little... fake.

 

All part of the Molby show though isn't it?

I'm not moralising, just pointing out circumstances

at no point do I say one course of action is better than another

 

and as previously stated, my use of the term savages refers to the systems of government and authority in Arab countries as defined by my standards -  not the inherent nature of Arabs

but of course that's too difficult for you to process isn't it?

 

Christ you've got a hard on for me. I can just send you a few signed photos to keep by your bed, and have done with it

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not moralising, just pointing out circumstances

at no point do I say one course of action is better than another

 

and as previously stated, my use of the term savages refers to the systems of government and authority in Arab countries as defined by my standards - not the inherent nature of Arabs

but of course that's too difficult for you to process isn't it?

 

Christ you've got a hard on for me. I can just send you a few signed photos to keep by your bed, and have done with it

Nice attempt.
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...