BS: chemical weapons in Syria

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 08:27 AM

"Jimmy-boy,"
AH - Bruce the Goosestepper crawled out from under his stone
"And yet you NEVER complain about the use of ATOMIC weapons by the Palestinians."
Atomic weapons - that's a new one on me - enlighten me.
I know Israel attempted to arm the Apartheid regime in South Africa with Nuclear weapons - they declined, because they realised that they would have to hand them over to 'the blecks" when they were finally kicked out.
So Israel had to settle for setting up its own Apartheid State
What a sick, cowardly little man you are.
Chemicals that burn the faces off children (the Israelis havfe targeted schools with them) are chemnical weapons, pure and simple, and recognised such by the civilised world, which is why they have been condemned and all but banned.
"still seem fine with the use of real "
You mean "find", I'm sure.
I condemn the use of chemical weapons, whoever uses them.
I have ben an opponent of the Assad regime from day one (go look at the Homs Horror thread) - whole your two mates, Keith and Teribus, were defending (at the height of the Homs massacres) the sales of sniper ammunition,, armoured cars and riot control equipment - one of the tossers said it would be fine to sell them equipment to oppose the protestors as "even democratic countries have a right to keep civil order" (or some such crass phrases)
I think the Assad regime is a monstrous one and it's equally as monstrous for Britain to have continued selling them this equipment long after they knew of its human rights record.
Now - back under your bridge O Brainless one.
ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 07:31 AM

AND YOU still seem fine with the use of real chemical weapons on Syrians, as long as it is done by Moslems.




BTW, this is what Human Rights Watch has to say about your friends:

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/human-rights-watch-palestinians-abuse-media-activists/

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 07:25 AM

Jimmy-boy,

And yet you NEVER complain about the use of ATOMIC weapons by the Palestinians.

After all, EVER knife and bomb they use to kill innocent civilians is made of atoms- so they MUST be using atomic weapons by what you say

THIS IS A WAR CRIME

For shame.

Your cover-up of this is beyond all belief. Your family and friends should shun you and still hang their heads in shame for even knowing you.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 05:41 AM

HUMAN CONSEQUENCES of WEAPONS USED BY ISRAEL
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 04:44 AM

"Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon."
Building bricks are not weapons, until they are thrown at people.
Phosphorus is shown in the photographs being used in daylight against civilians - it is chemical and is being used as a weapon against unarmed human beings - it is a chemical weapon - Israel uses chemical weapons and has been accused of doing so by respectable independent observers
What kind of human detritus defends such actions?
C'mon - give us a self description
More
Your defence of this horror is beyond belief
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 04:18 AM

Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon.
The devices used in Gaza were smoke generators, and not actual weapons at all, but you will remember that I deplored its use in those circumstances.

Israel has never used chemical weapons against anyone, and is guilty of no "international war crimes and atrocities," unlike its next door neighbour that commits them every day while you always and only criticise Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 04:47 PM

An earlier posting
"I am fascinated that anybody should have made it their hobby to defend international war crimes and atrocities
Me too!
Who on earth is this person?"
Twigged now Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 02:03 PM

"Israel has never used chemical weapons against anyone,"
Israel has used phosphorous against the Gazans and has used chemical spray aainst Begouin farmers in order to clear them from their farms
You wer given photographs of children with their faces half burnt away from the phosphorus and were linked to the reports of the methods used to expel the Bedouin.
But here is some more.
"Israel Lands Administration admits use of toxic chemicals to kill Bedouin crops
"The ILA has been spraying fields cultivated by Bedouin farmers in the Naqab with chemicals that have not been approved by the Agriculture Ministry and have been banned in use for aerial spraying. In February 2005, a senior ILA official submitted an affidavit to that effect to the Supreme Court of Justice, which is currently discussing a petition filed by Bedouin farmers against the ILA's crop-spraying policy in the Naqab. The petition, filed in May 2004, by Adalah, claims that "the spraying of crops endangers the life and health of human beings and animals, as well as their environment." Adalah submitted an expert opinion that stated that crop spraying increased the chances of birth defects and statistical likelihood of developing cancer. At the time the petition was filed, the court issued an injunction banning all aerial spraying and the ILA subsequently returned to its policy of ploughing. The aerial spraying is carried out by Chim-Nir, a private company based in Herzliya. According to the affidavit, the company used three different types of chemicals – Roundup, Typhoon and Glyphogen – all of which are derivatives of glyphosate. Between 2002 and 2003 the company only used Roundup, but in 2004 the ILA also used the two other chemicals. According to the director of the ILA's supervisory division, "the label on the Typhoon packaging does not specify any instructions regarding aerial sprying. This means that aerial spraying with Typhoon has not been approved."
Source: Ha'aretz, 16 February 2005"
source

"(Jerusalem) - Israel's repeated firing of white phosphorus shells over densely populated areas of Gaza during its recent military campaign was indiscriminate and is evidence of war crimes, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.
The 71-page report, "Rain of Fire: Israel's Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza," provides witness accounts of the devastating effects that white phosphorus munitions had on civilians and civilian property in Gaza. Human Rights Watch researchers in Gaza immediately after hostilities ended found spent shells, canister liners, and dozens of burnt felt wedges containing white phosphorus on city streets, apartment roofs, residential courtyards, and at a United Nations school. The report also presents ballistics evidence, photographs, and satellite imagery, as well as documents from the Israeli military and government."
Human Rights Watch
DAYTIME USE OF "ILLUMINATING" PHOSPHORUS!!!
US COVER-UP
More photographic evidence - from the US
You've had this over and over again, but I'm always happy to oblige - as often as you deny it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 12:43 PM

Ignore him Keith, posts like that are a sign his obsessive hatred is slowly making him insane.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 09:33 AM

Of course, Israel has been using chemicals against the Gazans and the Bedouins for far longer of course

Israel has never used chemical weapons against anyone, but valiant attempt to obscure the fact that every day in Syria more atrocities are committed than Israel has even been accused of.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 08:48 AM

Why do you bring Israel into a discussion that has nothing to do with it you despicable little Jew hating Nazi.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 08:38 AM

"What say ye now deniers and apologists?"
Has here ever been any doubt?
Your two mates have been defending the fact that Britain supplied chemicals that could have been used to manufacture the weapons for over a year now.
Of course, Israel has been using chemicals against the Gazans and the Bedouins for far longer of course but this in no way excuses it's use by Assad, who has been a friend and valued customer for many decades.
"Israel has signed but not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).[19] In 1983 a report by the CIA stated that Israel, after "finding itself surrounded by frontline Arab states with budding CW capabilities, became increasingly conscious of its vulnerability to chemical attack... undertook a program of chemical warfare preparations in both offensive and protective areas... In late 1982 a probable CW nerve agent production facility and a storage facility were identified at the Dimona Sensitive Storage Area in the Negev Desert. Other CW agent production is believed to exist within a well-developed Israeli chemical industry."[20]
There are also speculations that a chemical weapons program might be located at the Israel Institute for Biological Research (IIBR[21]) in Ness Ziona.[22]
190 liters of dimethyl methylphosphonate, a CWC schedule 2 chemical used in the synthesis of sarin nerve gas, was discovered in the cargo of El Al Flight 1862 after it crashed in 1992 en route to Tel Aviv. Israel insisted the material was non-toxic, was to have been used to test filters that protect against chemical weapons, and that it had been clearly listed on the cargo manifest in accordance with international regulations. The shipment was from a U.S. chemical plant to the IIBR under a U.S. Department of Commerce license.[23]"
ISRAELI WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 08:25 AM

What say ye now deniers and apologists?

There is now, at last, conclusive evidence that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) have used chemical weapons in Syria, nearly 2.5 years after I collected evidence that proved that Assad had dropped chlorine barrel bombs on the towns of Kafr Zita and Talmenes in Idlib province.

The much anticipated and now leaked report by the United Nations and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Joint Investigation Mechanism (JIM) has at last concluded that both the Assad regime and ISIL have used chemical weapons on a number of occasions.

Al Jazeera

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Iains
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 03:13 AM

It is hard to give credence to these reports since the UN largely functions as the US whipping boy. The US by the way is warmaking illegally in Syria with absolutely no mandate to be there, thereby following a long tradition.
Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)

    China 1949 to early 1960s
    Albania 1949-53
    East Germany 1950s
    Iran 1953 *
    Guatemala 1954 *
    Costa Rica mid-1950s
    Syria 1956-7
    Egypt 1957
    Indonesia 1957-8
    British Guiana 1953-64 *
    Iraq 1963 *
    North Vietnam 1945-73
    Cambodia 1955-70 *
    Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
    Ecuador 1960-63 *
    Congo 1960 *
    France 1965
    Brazil 1962-64 *
    Dominican Republic 1963 *
    Cuba 1959 to present
    Bolivia 1964 *
    Indonesia 1965 *
    Ghana 1966 *
    Chile 1964-73 *
    Greece 1967 *
    Costa Rica 1970-71
    Bolivia 1971 *
    Australia 1973-75 *
    Angola 1975, 1980s
    Zaire 1975
    Portugal 1974-76 *
    Jamaica 1976-80 *
    Seychelles 1979-81
    Chad 1981-82 *
    Grenada 1983 *
    South Yemen 1982-84
    Suriname 1982-84
    Fiji 1987 *
    Libya 1980s
    Nicaragua 1981-90 *
    Panama 1989 *
    Bulgaria 1990 *
    Albania 1991 *
    Iraq 1991
    Afghanistan 1980s *
    Somalia 1993
    Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
    Ecuador 2000 *
    Afghanistan 2001 *
    Venezuela 2002 *
    Iraq 2003 *
    Haiti 2004 *
    Somalia 2007 to present
    Honduras 2009
    Libya 2011 *
    Syria 2012
    Ukraine 2014 *

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 11:09 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/report-syria-and-islamic-state-blamed-for-chemical-attacks/2016/08/24/29ca3d72-6a64-11e6-91cb-ecb5418830e9_story.html


Mudcat linkmaker truncvated it.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 10:53 AM

UN Report: Syria and IS Used Chemical Weapons In 2014 And 2015

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Iains
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 10:30 AM

Seems even the MSM has to withdraw it's blatant propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 10:22 AM


The Washington Post

PAGE NOT FOUND

We're unable to locate the page you requested.

The page may have moved or may no longer be available.
We want to help you find what you're looking for. Here are some suggestions:

Try another search:

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 10:07 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/report-syria-and-islamic-state-blamed-for-chemical-attacks/2016/08/24/29ca3d72-

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 09:11 AM

Greg, you have shown us by your posts that you don't know the meaning of the word "substantive".

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 08:53 AM

Bubo, I think that pointing out that your link is bullshit, as several folks have done, is entirely substantive.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 08:41 AM

As usual nothing of substance from Mr.F who shows us once again that he is incapable of an original thought.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 08:28 AM

Bubo always has had overall problems with reality........

Here he's trying out for the BeardedBruce award.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Iains
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 04:09 AM

IF the link above is supposed to be reality then I will have to start believing in Snow white and the 7 dwarves.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 08:01 PM

An update to the situation in Syria (remember Syria?) - it's a sad and sorry tale of betrayal: How Barack Obama sold out Syrians to appease Iran

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 07:33 PM

Did anyone see former USA president Bill Clinton on Pierce Morgan last night? He gave an interesting perspective (IMO) on Putin (from his direct experience with the man in the past), what Putin likely considers in the Syrian situation, and how he dealt with him in the past.He also talked about the current approach to curbing the chemical weapons. I suspect it is online somewhere, if not the network site.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 04:33 PM

If President Obama can turn this diplomatic initiative into a win, defined as UN officials being able to verify that all of Syria's chemical weapons are no longer a threat to anyone (which, had Obama gone with his first instinct to intervene militarily, would have been nigh impossible to do), then whatever political capital he invested would yield substantially better than average returns. Gains have already been realized with the American public who did not want to see yet another window cracked open to yet another endless vista of Middle East military involvement, to be played out on televisions all across America for who knows how long. And from an international perspective, US allies must see it as an admirable change from the typically heavy-handed application of foreign policy that America, at least temporarily, has deviated from the usual path of "shoot first, ask questions later."

As for as losing ground to the Republicans, Obama had no ground to lose insofar as the Republican party's instinctive reaction is to oppose any initiative Obama proposes, regardless. If he thinks it's the right thing to do, then it must be wrong. Still, had Obama initially sought congressional support for a military intervention in Syria, rather than taking the (diplomatic) road less taken, it would have been ironic to see the Republicans trip over their own hawkish feathers to vote against it.

Obama must be including Vladimir Putin in his prayers at night, for giving him the gift of an opening to let diplomacy work instead of having to face an intransigent Congress and his own party's war-wary constituency with a proposal that was universally unpopular.

And as an unforeseen dividend, a dialog with the Iranians over their nuclear program and the sanctions may even be possible. If this diplomacy thing works out, it may establish a precedent for future presidents (at least Democratic ones), as well as cement Obama's legacy as a team player on the global playground, rather than as a playground bully.

The only losers in this admittedly somewhat optimistic scenario, are the war materiel corporations (and their stockholders), who never met a military intervention they didn't like. This diplomatic thing would play hell with their bottom line. Here's hoping that it does.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 03:58 PM

"Obama's proposed intervention was a limited air and missile strike to deter more gassing, not an invasion. "
Doesn't matter what it was - you described any form of INTERVENTION as Fascist - Imperialist - Gung-Ho amd INVASION until Israel gate her support, then you ran and shoved your tongue up her backside unless she caught a cold from the draught.
You are a waste of space - you make things up, you lie, to chamge yopur mind when you are instructed to do so,you bring nothing to these discussions other than hastily gathered and selective cut-'n-pastes, and when you are caught out, you blame somebody else - I know, I know - "all lies"
IT'S ALL ON THIOS THREAD and any other thread you've been involved with lately
You don't even bother with your cut-'n- pastes much nowadays - too much effort
Go away      
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 03:41 PM

Obama's proposed intervention was a limited air and missile strike to deter more gassing, not an invasion.
I thought that was right, as a lesser evil than gas becoming an accepted weapon of war.
That was, and is, the only intervention I have supported, and I have not once changed my view.
Not once.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 12:08 PM

Military intervention has historically never worked to eradicate any weaponry.
In fact, it generally increases its use. Exponentially.

World War II lead to the development of nuclear weapons prominently featured in
the later "Cold War" with the Soviet Union. Hitler's "secret weapon" was discussed
at the close of the World War.

The only reasonable invention must be made by outlawing all weapons of war,
not excepting any one of them and adopting diplomacy instead.

You can't stop a fire by starting a blaze. Even back fires of containment will not stop fire from spreading in other places.

World War I was supposed to be "the war to end all wars". How did that work out?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 10:42 AM

"Make me a liar Jim."
You've done that far too often yourself
World inaction turned protests into a civil war manipulated by Assad and facilitated by arms provided by Capitalist countries like Russia and Britain (with her "sniper bullets", riot control equipment and armoured cars)
You have not only opposed ANY FORM OF INTERVENTION from the beginning of the Homs thread, but you have invented my position and others by describing any form of intervention as "Gung-ho invasion" when all wewere calling for was military intervention to stop the massacres - that was and remains my position - you have even called those of us who wanted this intervention "fascists and Imperialists".
I have never at any time advocated "invasion" and have expressed my mistrust of the U.S. setting foot on anybodies territory with their track record.
I am far from happy at them going in anywhere, I am less happy, with their record of "friendly fire" bombing anyone from the Air.
My argument has been that Assad should be stopped both for humanitarian reasons and because of the fact that we helped provide him with his lethal toys.
That is your "fascism", "Imperialism". "jackboot=ism", "Gung Ho-ism". - show me where I have ever suggested anything else.
Your response to these suggestions makes if clear that you have always opposed any form of intervention - right up to the point Israel called on support for the "intervention" that you are now (apparently) supporting.
Bombing from the air is the only offer on the table now - inaction has left no other alternative, though it is a cowardly choice.
I posted a list of your quotes last night - they seem to have not got through.
I won't bother again unless you continue to claim you have always supported intervention - this time I will dredge the Homs thraed and also provide the dates that you made your U-turn
There is no need to make you a liar - that is part of what you do all the time
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 09:04 AM

Make me a liar Jim.
Find me ever opposing Obama.

Obama never wanted to intervene in the civil war, like me but unlike you.
Obama made gas use a "red line" and proposed a limited strike to deter further use.
Without enthusiasm, I believed him right.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 08:36 AM

Yeah - sure you did!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 07:56 AM

You did NOT - you opposed all forms of intervention and described such an act as "Gung-Ho invasion"

Correct.
I still do, but from the day Obama proposed a limited strike to deter use of gas, I supported that.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 07:14 AM

Sorry Mr McGrath, that was clumsy of me.
What I meant was, that those who rise up against a secular dictatorship, always seem to end up under an even more dictatorial "extreme Islamist govt"

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 06:53 AM

"I thought that was right, as a lesser evil than gas becoming an accepted weapon of war."
You did NOT - you opposed all forms of intervention and described such an act as "Gung-Ho invasion"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 06:17 AM

Obama's proposed intervention was a limited air and missile strike to deter more gassing, not an invasion.
I thought that was right, as a lesser evil than gas becoming an accepted weapon of war.
That was, and is, the only intervention I have supported, and I have not once changed my view.
Not once.
No U-turns, screeching or not.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 06:05 AM

Yoy've been given this information hence your screeching U-turn from total opposition to intevention
"We can not intervene in every dispute and perceived injustice in every country"
You now seem to be attempting to pretend you didn't know to hide your total sycophantic subservience to Israel
Jim Carroll

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/Default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=24105
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/pro-israel-lobby-rallies-behind-obama-in-support-of-strike-1.1521297
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.545616

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 04:07 AM

Has there been any public statement by Netanyahu or any government minister about supporting Obama?
No.
Private conversations?
Just speculation.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 04:00 AM

BBC today.

The UK is to give another £100m to Syria to help tackle the war-torn country's humanitarian crisis.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said the pledge - which takes the total from the government to £500m - showed the UK was "leading the charge" to help.

Speaking from New York, Mr Clegg said: "We cannot avert our gaze from the Syrian people, especially children."

The £100m will go to agencies providing food, clean water and shelter to four million people displaced by fighting.

Mr Clegg, who was addressing a marginal meeting at the UN General Assembly, said: "The need for this funding is clear.

"Millions of people find themselves in an absolutely appalling humanitarian situation, through no fault of their own.

"The UK has been leading the charge to alleviate suffering through the Syria UN appeals.

"But there's a huge gap in what's needed. I've been pushing other countries at the UN General Assembly to help meet the shortfall."

International Development Secretary Justine Greening said Britain's humanitarian response to the Syrian crisis was its largest ever because "sadly it reflects the scale, despair and brutality of what's going on".

Oxfam's chief executive Mark Goldring welcomed the extra funding, saying it would make a "real difference in getting basics such as food, water and medicine to many vulnerable Syrians".

"The UK government is showing international leadership on supporting the UN appeal which is still less than half-funded. The UK government has acted, now other countries must follow," he added.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 03:58 AM

"I may have forgotten, but I think you are wrong again Jim."
No Keith - you are trying to get yourself off the hook for your spectacular U turn - it was pointed out to you that Israel suppaorted Obama and suddenly you supported Obama - you have been given your dogged opposition to any form of intervention on the other thread sheesh!!!!
Jim Carroll   

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/pro-israel-lobby-rallies-behind-obama-in-support-of-strike-1.1521297

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 03:00 AM

Obama's proposed intervention was a limited air and missile strike to deter more gassing, not an invasion.
I thought that was right, as a lesser evil than gas becoming an accepted weapon of war.
That was, and is, the only intervention I have supported, and I have not once changed my view.

I think you are wrong about Israel supporting Obama's proposed strike.
A false memory Jim?
It was predicted that there would be reprisal attacks on Israel, and there was a hurried distribution of gas masks, so I am sure most hoped it would not happen.

I may have forgotten, but I think you are wrong again Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 08:59 PM

"but does it really benefit the people of Syria, Libya, Egypt to rise up against the power of extreme Islam?"

That's not what's been happening. Syria Libya and Egypt were all secular dictatorships, as was Iraq (and for that matter Iran before their revolution), and extreme Islamists were an important element among those rising up.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 08:00 PM

"Would we not be better to step back and let "evolution" take care of things"
WHAT!!!!Let them lie back and enjoy being totrured and massacred!!""

So. what is the record of western intervention explained off as a cure "
for these ills in recent history?

Western powers have intervened mostly where there is a clear econonic/political interest,and rarely beyond that (not, to help those impacted by dictatorship, torture or massacre).

Note, thatI do not focus on western government's record of propping up "strong man dictators" as was done in central and south America (and Africa) for years, under the guise of curtailing "the commie boogie man".

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 07:46 PM

"Can you post it for us?"
You've had it - am tired of posting an re-posting stuff you either don'tread or refuse to comment on when you have been given it - Israeli policy is freely available - as if you havn't looked it up already - how on earth would you know who to suppors if you didn't get your instructions from above?
In the meantime - some examples to your support!!!! for intervention
Sleep well now
And b the way - the air strikes
Jim Carroll

"Jim, you have previously advocated Western military intervention against Assad.
Has you view changed in light of recent events."

"Sorry to disappoint Jim, but no-one is advocating invasion.
Except you, obviously"

"No-one is advocating intervention in their war.
Just to send the message that they can not gas civilians with impunity."

"We can not intervene in every dispute and perceived injustice in every country."

"No intervention in a civil war."

"I agree with you that the West should not get involved."

"Still advocating an invasion by Western troops, or will you be satisfied with a time limited missile offensive?"

"No-one on Mudcat came out and said it was not our concern whether gas, germs or radionucleides rained on innocent families, but now they are outraged that Obama assumed decent people would support him."

"Not withstanding Cameron's defeat, UKIP was the only British party opposed to the intervention.
In US, it seems to be the Tea Party.
And most of Mudcat are with them!"

And then spectacularly
"Everyone else on this thread knows that I have supported Obama's proposed limited air and missile strike, though without enthusiasm."

"Obama's proposed intervention was a limited air and missile strike to deter more gassing.
I thought that was right, as a lesser evil than gas becoming an accepted weapon of war.
That was, and is, the only intervention I have supported, and I have not once changed my view."

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 01:17 PM

Then you are saying that you disagree with Israel and Obama when they support intervention

Obama's proposed intervention was a limited air and missile strike to deter more gassing.
I thought that was right, as a lesser evil than gas becoming an accepted weapon of war.
That was, and is, the only intervention I have supported, and I have not once changed my view.
I do not know what Israel supported.
Are you sure their government expressed an opinion?
Can you post it for us?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 12:05 PM

The "first step", can often be the first step off the cliff Jim.

I have known that Capitalism was wrong all my life, but only recently has it been made obvious to all, by its failure in the West.
It is a roulette wheel and we are on a losing run. I look back on all the great men who have fought against it....but the people wanted another spin of the wheel.

I have come to believe that all things will evolve if they are positive and not against natural law.....it just means that we may never see the sort of world that we would like to live in.
Patience is a virtue.

Hate homosexuals?.....I don't think sex between men is safe or healthy, but isn't that different from "hating" homosexuals?
Hate immigrants? I don't believe we should pursue a policy of unregulated immigration, but isn't that different from "hating" immigrants?

What do you, Ian and Richard actually mean when you use the word hate?
Is it simply a "get out", a substitute for reasoned debate?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 12:01 PM

Then you are saying that you disagree with Israel and Obama when they support intervention - do I have that right?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 11:53 AM

You were vociferously claiming that you supported Obama's decision (but only after Israel had given you the go ahead)

I have been completely consistent throughout.
No intervention in a civil war.
I supported from the start Obama's decision to punish the use of poison gas, but not "vociferously."
Just reluctantly, as the lesser of evils.

Anyone following the debate knows all that.
Lying does you no credit.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 10:58 AM

"You are not making sense, do you think the people of Syria, Libya, and Egypt are in a better place now than before the "Arab Spring"?"
No idea - but not to take the first step means that they forever remain the same
They get criticised for being what you claim they are - they take steps to change and you're still whingeing - what do you want them to do, wait for the 7th Cavalry - take on good ol' General Westmorland's suggestion in Vietnam and "Nuke 'em into the Stone Age"?
"I am a better Socialist than you Jim,
Don't know any socialists who hate homosexuals or immigrants, but then, it is possible I've led a very sheltered life
"I am aware of its faults as well as its virtues."
Me too, the difference being that I welcome it as a first teetering step - you bury it before it gets off the ground.
"Jom - we haven't sold arms to Assad - not even "sniper rifles to practice with".
Turpitude - why did you suggest it in the first place then and suggest "that's what snipers do" - you've had my answer on the other thread - won't hold my breath....
Of course - you're the one who attempted to pass off napalm as merely petrol, Agent Orange as "herbicide" and white phosphorous as "harmless illumination" after you had been shown photographs of Palestinian children with their faces burned off - all matter of semantics I suppose!
"I agree with you that the West should not get involved."
You were vociferously claiming that you supported Obama's decision (but only after Israel had given you the go ahead) - getting a bit dizzy with all these wheelies and u-turns.
Are you now saying the US, the UK and Israel were actually WRONG in proposing intervention - now there,s a first, second and third, all in one sentence!
I assume we've moved away from non-chemical chemical weapons, have we?
First Laurel and Hardy, now The Three Stooges - which one's Mo - I always liked him?
Jim Carroll