BS: Cameron defeat in parliament

Subject: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 05:14 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

I'm relieved and even somewhat elated that the UK won't be joining the US in a military 'intervention' in Syria. I'm also surprised at Cameron actually listening to democracy in action, impressed in fact.

One last thing worthy of note regarding the - now lone - forthcoming US military action in Syria, are Obama's oddly candid comments:

"President Obama's decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States...He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States."

So there you go, straight from the horses mouth!

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 05:24 AM

PS just for fun, this song isn't about the US military complex, but it probably should be:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPQSlpOj4ls

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 05:28 AM

Assad and his chemical units are also relieved and even somewhat elated.

Their victims are grieving and even somewhat betrayed.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 05:32 AM

Thatcher had a war, Blair had a war, so that twat Cameron wants one as well, we say a resounding NO.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 05:36 AM

So Parliament decided to abandon the Alice in Wonderland formula "Sentence first, verdict afterwords".

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 05:44 AM

The fighting is Syria will go on, and may spread.
Chemical weapons will be used again and again if there are no consequences.
They will become accepted.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: alanabit
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 06:04 AM

I am cynical about these things, but I believe Cameron has been lucky. He has shown willingness to do what the Pentagon requires, but he now has a first rate excuse for not sending British forces into what could be a long and costly war. This will save the country a fortune in defence costs and human lives. It will probably also increase Cameron's chances of winning the next election. The worst aspect of it from his point of view, is that it will cause some temporary pain to his buddies in the armaments industry.
I won't make predictions, but I am hoping that this vote might have some knock on effect in the USA itself and help to avert US forces getting involved too.
Assad is undoubtedly an arsehole and a tyrant. However, the reason our Conservatives (and those elsewhere) wish him to be deposed quickly is that they perceive him as a left-wing tyrant and arsehole. The policy of supporting anyone who wishes to fight him appeals to those who have forgotten what happened in Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 06:22 AM

The fighting in Syria will go on and may spread. There is no reason whatsoever to think that missile strikes and bombing raids by outside countries will do anything but ensure that the fighting continues longer and that it spreads even wider.

And there is no reason to think that Parliament's decision will in any way prevent that happening. This wasn't about that, it was about whether Britain is seen as a great power, or rather, whether it can pretend to be a great power.

The key players in all this are the US and Russia. The prority for Russia in this is to ensure that Siyria does not become a jihadist state. Towards that end they are willing to accept the Syrian government doing whatever it thinks necessary. Using chemical weapons does not in any way advance that end, in fact it very seriously damages it. This means the Russians have every reason to prevent this happening. In this they have a common interest with the US (and Britain)'. The rational thing is to try to use this to end the civil war.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: alanabit
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 06:26 AM

Couldn't agree more Kevin.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 08:00 AM

A limited, proportionate strike to discourage further chemimical atrocities was the issue.

Of course the war will go on, but maybe without nerve gas.
We can do nothing about the war.
We might stop more nerve gas.

That is what we all want.
Our parliament only wants it on someone elses' hands.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 08:04 AM

complex situation - hard to see what firing a few rockets would achieve. apart from making a few more quid for the Mark Thatcher/arms dealer types.

do we rally want to depose this bloke who says he respects English parliamentary democracy. theres not too many other governments in that neck of the woods saying stuff like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 09:11 AM

Why Britain owes
Jim Carroll

http://news.sky.com/story/1116687/britains-chemical-sales-to-syria-revealed

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 09:15 AM

1 down, 2 to go (France and the US)...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 12:17 PM

I've been wondering how the UK will vote in the UN Security Council now...

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: GUEST,Don Wise
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 01:57 PM

At least the MPs realise that "Putting out the fire with gasoline" is not a viable option in the middle east. The US administration won't now have to share the Bin Laden prize for recruiting services foe al-Qaida with Cameron and co.

Don't forget that the Russians have a small military base in Latakia.....(Syria for the geographically illiterate).

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 02:10 PM

""Thatcher had a war, Blair had a war, so that twat Cameron wants one as well, we say a resounding NO.""

Apparently we don't all say no.

At least one twat here wants it too.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 02:48 PM

Anyone who is concerned that nerve gas can be used on civilians and children with impunity is a "twat."
A worthy contribution on a complex issue Don.
Very conducive to thoughtful debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 05:53 PM

Cameron is finished, and he can thank Mr Hague for misunderstanding the mood of the UK public.
We no longer believe anything they say. Since the advent of the anti-politics party UKIP, people have started to think again, and they have obviously realised that they are being fed bullshit, about foreign policy about immigration, about the economy and social issues.

Oh aye....I forgot Europe and sovereignty!

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 07:08 PM

Don, if only "twats" even consider a limited strike to dissuade Assad from gassing more kids, what is Jim who wanted an invasion even before that atrocity?

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 08:45 PM

limited strike means killing kids,burning mutilating....how will it help the situation.

Sadam used chemical weapons against the Kurds. He was a shit. but really are we any better with the power struggle his successors inherited. Plus we know that given a democratic choice - people in that part of the world choose extremists of their own faction.

Plus to create this mess we have put our severely underfunded armed forces into the breach, and we have had lost good men.

With respect Keith, have you thought this through.

I respect Cameron for apparently listening to parliament and the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 02:33 AM

Yes Al.
When the strike goes in our screens will again be filled with dead children.
Innocent helpless people will die.
It would be a most evil thing to do, but the consequences of not doing it would be even worse.

Assad will do it again on an ever larger scale, and so will every other tyrant with an uppity people.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 04:24 AM

And Britain, Russia and the US, three of the major arms dealing nations, and all other death dealers, will continue to sell him the means to do it
On the ground intervention by the U.N, or failing that, by nations who have no vested interest driving them is really the only way out as far as I can see
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 04:37 AM

@ Akenaten, broadly agreed. There has been a huge sea change in public opinion where politics and particularly politicians are concerned. While there's always been a healthy degree of cynical feeling towards politicians in the UK, I think the public are now thoroughly pissed off with the lies and manipulation.

I like to read the 'top comments' of middle-England papers like the Daily Mail to get an idea of what that group are thinking, and it's been interesting to see just how much they are thoroughly disenchanted with the Tory party right now, including on strongly pro-military intervention Daily Mail articles. They just don't trust or believe their masters any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 04:59 AM

Not Britain, Russia and the US.
Russia, China and Iran do the arms selling to Assad.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 05:08 AM

You have been given the evidence of Britain selling the wherewithal to make chemical weapons disprove it or accept it.
Y'r 'tis again
http://news.sky.com/story/1116687/britains-chemical-sales-to-syria-revealed
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 05:52 AM

I'm very surprised that Israel toughs have not already given Assad a good biffing. However, I daresay our own toughs have been in Syria for some time and are simply waiting for the moment!!

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 06:16 AM

And by the way - not only have the Americans been selling weapons to terrorist states for as long as I can remember, but they have a habit of sending their troops in to back some of the world's worst dictators
Hypocrisy rules - ok
"I'm very surprised that Israel toughs have not already given Assad a good biffing"
Probably not interesting in developing settlements that far from home, not yet anyway!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 06:32 AM

Jim, your "evidence"
"The CAEC said supplies of sodium fluoride, which could be used to make chemical weapons, were sent to Syria in the last couple of years.

Sodium fluoride is a legitimate component of a number of civilian products including toothpaste, but there is no way of knowing what it was used for in the end."

Sodium fluoride is a harmless substance freely available everywhere.
They dose our water with it to protect our teeth
It is not a weapon, although you would not want a big sack to land on your toe.

Meanwhile Russia supplies all the guns tanks aircraft and ammo assad needs to slaughter his people.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 07:24 AM

The militaristic possibilities of the chemicals sold to Syria were well well known; had this not been the case the manufacturers and exporters would be in breach of all safety regulations.
Assad and his dynasty were well known as torturers and killers; this was long known even before the Amnesty report, yet Britain traded chemicals capable of being converted into weapons along with small arms ammunition (probably sniper rifle bullets)
The bullets were acknowledged in the press at the time as possible being used at Homs, and it is more than likely that the chemicals supplied by Britain were used to develop the chemical weapons now being used.
Assad is exactly the type of trading partner Trade Minister Vince Cable described as "untrustworth" yet he was sold materials which it must have been known could be used in the way that it has been.
Monster regimes like Assad's should be subject to a permanent trade ban by nations described as civilised - certainly not sold weapons to.
You were among the first to support the Israeli ban on essential agricultural fertilizer into Palestine - lets here it from you now then
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 08:23 AM

""limited strike means killing kids,burning mutilating....how will it help the situation.

Sadam used chemical weapons against the Kurds. He was a shit. but really are we any better with the power struggle his successors inherited. Plus we know that given a democratic choice - people in that part of the world choose extremists of their own faction.

Plus to create this mess we have put our severely underfunded armed forces into the breach, and we have had lost good men.""

Thank you Al for saving me the bother of replying to one who makes me feel I need to wash my hands afterward.

The only thing worse than not intervening (other than with humanitarian aid) is intervening IMO.

Weighing up the alternatives, it's a no win situation and we have only recently extracted ourselves from one such and are still embroiled in another.

Intervening inevitably results in increased danger of terrorist attacks at home, more of our sons and daughters sacrificed, maimed and traumatised, and still no conceivable end game that will improve the lives of the Syrians who survive.

Not intervening (except on a humanitarian basis) will not increase the number of those who hate us (we have more than enough already), and might even improve relations between us and the Islamic countries. I know that idea will be viewed with horror by our Irsrael groupies, who would rather see a war to eradicate them.

The bottom line is that this scenario leads inexorably toward escalation, with Russia and China head to head with the USA.

War does not decide who is right, it decides who is LEFT!!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 12:14 PM

Actually the whole business in the Commons was pretty daft, because the amendment by Labour which failed to get passed effectively said the same as the Government motion that also failed to get through, just using different phraseology. Like the Gvernment motion it said that things had to hold fire until the inspectors had reported to the UN.

Here is the Labour amendment

And this links contains the Government motion

They play games.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 12:20 PM

Actually the whole business in the Commons was pretty daft, because the amendment by Labour which failed to get passed effectively said the same as the Government motion that also failed to get through, just using different phraseology. Like the Government motion it said that things had to hold fire until the inspectors had reported to the UN.

Here is the Labour amendment

And this links contains the Government motion

So if the Government had accepted the Labor amendment and told its people to vote for it, it would have passed. But that would have involved losing face - which of course happened in any case when they lost the motion they had assumed would be passed. They play such silly games.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: selby
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 12:39 PM

I am extremely pleased we are not getting involved in Syria our young men and women do not need to be lined up for a conflict that will be no end to, we have already wasted so many of our young peoples lives.
It is time for the worlds peace keeper the United Nations to reach a consensus as to the best way forward, even then we should keep out of a tinder box
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 01:21 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 07:08 PM

Don, if only "twats" even consider a limited strike to dissuade Assad from gassing more kids, what is Jim who wanted an invasion even before that atrocity?

I don't know Keith. Perhaps he is someone who was looking at this situation long before the unimaginable happened and the media went on its current relentless campaign. I think so.

McGrath, you got it. Sentence before verdict. Not the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Elmore
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 03:53 PM

Seemed to me that Cameron wasn't all that disappointed with his defeat. Even a limited strike can result in unintended consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 04:16 PM

I was in London today and there was a march on Parliament by some 'stop the war' activists. Odd timing, in the circumstances. In my view, they would have been better with banners saying 'Well done - now keep it up' or some such. Instead, they seemed strangely out of place.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 06:02 PM

Ha ha. They sound like hippies unaware that the Vietnam War is over. For now.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 06:33 PM

Oh well, at least the onset of World War III has been delayed for a few more months!

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 06:09 AM

Not intervening (except on a humanitarian basis) will not increase the number of those who hate us (we have more than enough already), and might even improve relations between us and the Islamic countries. I know that idea will be viewed with horror by our Irsrael groupies, who would rather see a war to eradicate them.

The Arab League wanted the intervention and feel betrayed by our decision.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 08:59 AM

The Wall Street Journal·16 hours ago   
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia—The Arab League is due to meet Sunday amid a flourish of diplomatic activity aimed at strengthening the group's public stance for U.S.-led strikes on Syria.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 09:16 AM

Now once upon a time that motion would have been tantamount to a vote of confidence, and having lost a vote of confidence constitutional convention would have obliged the government to resign.   But one of the very first things this bent government did after coming to power was to change the rules so that a special majority was required to compel it to resign. Power corrupts. But some were corrupt before obtaining power.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Stu
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 09:41 AM

"It is not a weapon, although you would not want a big sack to land on your toe."

The export licences were granted in January 2013, 10 months after the war had begun, and were only rescinded when tougher sanctions were imposed. These chemicals are not weapons themselves of course (doh) but can be used to make them.

So your beloved government might well be involved in this whole nightmare, and questions should be asked.

Just one thing Keith . . . if Sodium fluoride is not a weapon, then stick your head in bag of the powder and take several long, deep breaths (hint: call an ambulance before you do). On second thoughts, you're used to taking things on face value so for christ's sake don't. Please.


"Since the advent of the anti-politics party UKIP"

Brilliant! That gave me a belly-laugh.

UKIP are playing politics so well that an ex-public school, ex-stockbroker right-wing establishment posho can convince the most gullible in society that it has nothing to do with ex-public school, ex-city, posho establishment types and is standing should-to-shoulder with the man or woman in the street, with whom they have fuck-all in common (except for those who also hate johnny foreigner).

You couldn't make this shit up.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 10:00 AM

They put the stuff in our drinking water, and toothpaste is full of it.
It is good for your teeth.

If the licence was only a few months ago, we can be sure it was not used to make nerve gas.

They had a huge stockpile of nerve gas when the war begun two years ago.
Killing just a few hundred will not have depleted their arsenal.
They are not making it from scratch anyway.

Any criticism of the people supplying the napalm used on a school on Friday, or all the other bombs, guns and aircraft?

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 10:16 AM

To quote George W. Bush: "Fool you once.................won't get fooled again."
(Iraq redux)

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 11:41 AM

Interesting piece on media spin concerning supposed "pressure" on Obama for US military intervention in Syria:

"Intervention in Syria is extremely, undeniably unpopular. ... Lesley Wroughton of Reuters reported August 24. "About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria's civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act." ... The citizenry wants us to stay out of this conflict. And there is no legislative majority pushing for intervention. ... Yet the consensus in the press is that President Obama faces tremendous pressure to intervene. ...
   Where is this pressure coming from? Strangely, that question doesn't even occur to a lot of news organizations. ... Pressure from hundreds of thousands of citizens in the streets confers a certain degree of legitimacy. So does pressure from a just-passed House bill urging a certain course of action, or even unanimous pressure from all of the experts on a given subject. ... the "growing calls ... for forceful action" aren't coming from the people, or Congressional majorities, or an expert consensus. The pressure is being applied by a tiny, insular elite that mostly lives in Washington, D.C., and isn't bothered by the idea of committing America to military action that most Americans oppose. ...
   Why is their pro-war pressure legitimized as the prevailing story line, despite the fact that they hold a minority position, even as pressure against intervention -- that is to say, the majority position -- is all but ignored?"

How an Insular Elite Make Wars of Choice More Likely

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 11:43 AM

"Just one thing Keith . . . if Sodium fluoride is not a weapon, then stick your head in bag of the powder and take several long, deep breaths (hint: call an ambulance before you do). On second thoughts, you're used to taking things on face value so for christ's sake don't. Please."
Now why did you have to go and spoil it?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Stu
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 11:59 AM

"They put the stuff in our drinking water, and toothpaste is full of it.
It is good for your teeth."

Streuth.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 12:43 PM

Did you not know that Stu?
I am ingesting some as I type.
Truth not streuth.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 12:49 PM

Once again, since it's a point that has been completely ignored in all media coverage, as well as here, the Labour Party Amendment, which was opposed by all Conservatives (and I think all Lib Dems), while expressed in different words, effectively meant the same as the Government's motion.

It said that there should be no military attack until the report of the nspectors had been given to the Seccurity Council and discussed there, and a vote held, that anything done should be legal, and that there would have to be a further vote in the Commns before any British forces could be involved.

In other words, virtually the same as the Gvernment"s motion, which was why they voted against it...

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Eric the Viking
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 12:57 PM

So Sodium fluoride is used in toothpaste...true, but have you ever read the Hazcard for it? Maybe you should before declaring it safe.

The lethal dose for a 70 kg (154 lb) human is estimated at 5–10 g.[7] Sodium fluoride is classed as toxic by both inhalation (of dusts or aerosols) and ingestion.[13] In high enough doses, it has been shown to affect the heart and circulatory system.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 03:32 PM

So too much is harmful.
The same as with sodium chloride, common salt.
Also sugar.
Also water.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 03:39 PM

I wonder if anybody here finds it as disturbing as I do that someone here chooses to lie about the effects of the chemicals sold to Assad by Britain.
Keith is more than aware of the properties of fluoride and their possible use in the production of chemical weapons – he has responded to the horrific fact on the Chemical Weapons" thread by suggesting that it is wrong to criticise "poor old Britain" for selling this shit to a murderous regime because "others do it".
I'm tempted to believe his support for this trade is down to his fanatical nationalism and is not in any way connected to the fact that throughout three threads – including the epic "Homs Horror" one, he has vociferously opposed military intervention in Assad's genocide – I don't reee...ly believe we have a Syrian 'Lord Haw-Haw in our midst, but dismissing chemicals as "harmless as toothpaste" amounts to the same thing.
The arms trade has had a major influence in the Arab Spring protests, leading, in some cases to opposing sides fighting each other using British arms – good for the Arms Industry, not so good for those struggling for democracy.
It was suggested that the small arms ammunition (sniper bullets) were used to shoot down some of the women and children in Homs – it would be devastating to find that the chemicals sold to Assad were used to produce the weapons used against the Syrians in their recent gas attacks.
It seems to me particularly despicable to pass off the major elements in the production of rat poison and Sarin gas, and a mind control agent used by the Nazis as "harmless" so that Britain can keep its head held high – a flag too far, so to speak .      
I have pasted the posting I made to the other thread this morning.
The blue-clickie links may not survive the transfer, but they are intact on the "chemical weapons in Syria" thread
Now, once again where DID I put my Imodium?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 04:05 AM

Incidentally, this is the "toothpaste" that Britain sold Assad
Jim Carroll

Fluoride is THE main ingredient in rat poison.
Fluoride is THE main ingredient in Sarin nerve gas.
Fluoride is THE main ingredient in Prozac.
Fluoride destroys the brain (accumulates the pineal gland), the bones, the organs and causes cancer.
Hitler and Stalin used it in concentration camps and gulags as mass control instrument to make the prisoners docile.
http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2010/10/31/

FLUORIDE, HYDROGEN FLUORIDE, AND FLUORINE
What are fluoride, hydrogen fluoride, and fluorine?
Fluorine, hydrogen fluoride, and fluorides are chemically related. Fluorine is a naturally occurring, pale yellow-green gas with a sharp odor. Il combines with hydrogen to make hydrogen fluoride, a colorless gas. Hydrogen fluoride dissolves in waier to form hydrofluoric acid.
Fluorine also combines with metals to make fluorides such as sodium fluoride and calcium fluoride, both while solids. Sodium fluoride dissolves easily in water, hut calcium fluoride does not.
Fluorine and hydrogen fluoride are used to make certain chemical compounds. Hydrofluoric acid is used for etching glass. Fluorides are used in making steel, chemicals, ceramics, lubricants, dyes, plastics and pesticides (for ants and roaches). Fluorides are often added to drinking water supplies and to a variety of dental products, including toothpaste and mouth rinses, to prevent dental cavities.

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW. A CITIZENS GUID TO BIOLOGICAL, CHEMICAL AND NUCLEAR AGENTS & WEAPONS
What happens to fluoride, hydrogen fluoride, and fluorine when they enter the environment?
• Fluorine can not be destroyed in the environment, it can only change its form. Fluorine forms salts with minerals in soil, and doesn't evaporate back into air as a gas.
• Hydrogen fluoride gas will be absorbed by rain and into clouds and fog to form hydrofluoric acid, which will fall to the ground.
• Fluorides if released to the air from volcanoes and industry are carried by wind and rain to nearby water, soil, and food sources.
• Fluorides in water and soil will form strong associations with sediment or soil particles.
• Fluorides will accumulate in plants and animals. In animals, the fluoride accumulates primarily in the bones or shell rather than in edible meat.
http://books.google.ie/books?id=q6arweDfwjUC&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187&dq=Weapons+sodium+fluoride&source=bl&ots=PZkKfXNEaf&sig=3MEi49Yq

FLUORIDE: A KNOWN CHEMICAL WEAPON
February 19,1999. ALCOA Fined $750,000 by Commerce Department For Illegal Chemical Shipments.
Potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride are controlled because they can be used to make chemical weapons. These chemicals were added to the Department's control list in March 1991, but ALCOA's export compliance program failed to recognize and incorporate the change. There was no indication that in this case the chemicals were used for weapons purposes.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/effects.chem.weapon.precurs.htm

Also:
http://havacuppahemlock1.blogspot.ie/2013/01/fluoride-known-chemical-weapon.html

http://rense.com/general79/hd3.htm

http://www.quintessentialpublications.com/tracyrtwyman/?p=2271

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 04:12 PM

http://www.icnr.com/articles/fluoride-deposition.html

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 04:32 PM

when there's a three for the price of two offer on toothpaste - its easy to get carried away. This is obviously what has happened in this case.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 08:05 PM

"This is obviously what has happened in this case"
Right on Al - we've all known Assad was very concerned about the state of the nation's teeth - after all, he has to have something to pull out during his torture sessions
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 10:03 PM

It's too bad so few people believe what the US has to say about it all. Yes, really too bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Stu
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 04:58 AM

"Did you not know that Stu?
I am ingesting some as I type.
Truth not streuth."

You really don't make a good smartarse Keith.

Did you pay much for your education? Ask for your money back. If the taxpayer paid for it, we've been robbed.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 08:24 AM

Jim, none was delivered anyway.
Independent today.
"The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills insisted that although the licences were granted to an unnamed UK chemical company in January 2012, the substances were not sent to Syria before the permits were eventually revoked last July in response to tightened European Union sanctions.

In a previously unpublicised letter to MPs last year, Mr Cable acknowledged that his officials had authorised the export of an unspecified quantity of the chemicals in the knowledge that they were listed on an international schedule of chemical weapon precursors.

Downing Street insisted today that Britain's system for approving arms exports to Syria is working even though licences for two chemicals capable of being used in making nerve gas were approved by the Government and blocked only by EU sanctions.

The Prime Minister's official spokesman said: "You see the system working, with materials not exported. The facts are that the licences were revoked and the exports did not take place. The Prime Minister's view is that that demonstrates that the system is working. There is a sanctions regime, which is a very active part." "

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 08:36 AM

I could have sworn I saw Jim and Keith agreeing for a moment there about the need for some sort of intervention.

Real mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand Assad is clearly a monster but can we really keep on expecting the USA and Western Europe to be the world's policemen while the Arab world seems content to let him get on with it? Who should really be dealing with this man?

Since 2001, Western forces have been sent to Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Plus Mali in the last 12 months. Another war in the developing world? Really?

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 08:41 AM

For the intellectually challenged: A harmless constituent of toothpaste

A qote from the above link

""Emergency Overview
--------------------------
DANGER! MAY BE FATAL IF SWALLOWED OR INHALED. AFFECTS RESPIRATORY SYSTEM, HEART, SKELETON, CIRCULATORY SYSTEM, CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM AND KIDNEYS. CAUSES IRRITATION TO SKIN, EYES AND RESPIRATORY TRACT. IRRITATION EFFECTS MAY BE DELAYED.

J.T. Baker SAF-T-DATA(tm) Ratings (Provided here for your convenience)""

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 08:53 AM

You swallow some every day Don.
Its in your tap water.
And, tea adds even more.

Look at your list and try and find a chemical with no hazards.
This is an every day chemical that Britain never sent to Syria.
What is the issue?

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 08:57 AM

"The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills insisted that although the licences were granted to an unnamed UK chemical company in January 2012, the substances were not sent to Syria before the permits were eventually revoked last July in response to tightened European Union sanctions"
They would say that, wouldn't they, but this in no way excuses your revolting attempts to disguise the fact that you had the information about the materials and attempted to claim it as "harmless as toothpaste and only dangerous if you dropped it on your foot" - incredible!
Nor does it excuse your old usuaal "poor old Britain" response to our dealing in chemical weapons material - we shouldn't have sold him toothbrushes, never mind fluoride.
"agreeing for a moment there about the need for some sort of intervention"
If you trace through Keith's offerings on intervention, as far back as 'Homs Horror' you will find he has strongly opposed any form of intervention (unless you include supplying riot control equipment) and has sneered at anybody who has disagreed with him
This has stretched as far as this thread, where he seems to have had a change of heart (become a born-again interventionist perhaps)
His opposition has spread even to this thread 30 Aug 13 - 07:08 PM ) which I don't fully understand, but then again, psychiatry was never my strong point
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 09:01 AM

Do you enjoy a drink Don?
Read this.

SAFETY DATA SHEET Ethanol Page 2 of 13
2 / 13
May cause drowsiness or dizziness. Extreme exposure such as intentional
inhalation may cause unconsciousness, asphyxiation and death.
Precautionary statements
Prevention Obtain special instructions before use.
Do not handle until all safety precautions have been read and understood.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 10:10 AM

Arsenic and striychnine are quite good for you too, in the right quantity. Too much water and it will kill you.

Get the quantity wrong and you're dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 10:31 AM

Jim, what I opposed on the Homs thread was an invasion of Syria by Western troops.
I still think that would be madness.
Are you still in favour?

The intervention I am suggesting, for any tyrant who uses chemical weapons on civilians, is to have his palaces knocked down and his means of delivery targeted.

I don't do sneering Jim, and the quote you attributed to me is a fake.

You have to make up stuff about me because my posts are all honest and good natured.
You can and probably will sneer, but you will not produce any that are not.

Now, this thread is about Syria, not me.
Keep the personal stuff to pms.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Stringsinger
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 11:35 AM

There are no consequences to punish those using chemical weapons. They have been
used for years. Napalm, Agent Orange, White Phosphorous, Depleted Uranium.

Obama's "slap on the wrist" will not deter maniacs like Assad one bit and will probably strengthen his hand. Cameron is a stooge of the U.S. Pentagon.

Why is it that these insane leaders think they can bomb their way out of a complex
matter? Could it be that they have something to gain politically and financially?
(Rhetorical question).

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 11:36 AM

Still being an apologist for selling chemicals for selling chemicals to Assad I see - see below.
Personally Keith, I don't give a toss what you believe and don't believe - what you have said is open to view on all the threads you have contributed to should anybody have the stomach to revisit them.
Assad should have been stopped by one means or another during Homs - that was when his intentions to commit war crimes became obvious.
Your suggestion that it was o.k. for him to have been sold the "riot control equipment he already had been sold, including 'non-armed' whatever that means armoured vehicles sums up you feeling towards those who were being massacred daily - "good natured" or what?
Had intervention taken place then there would have been no gas attacks, no civil war and he would have been banged up where he could do no more harm - can't thing of any less "madness" than that.
Do I believe in military intervention - I believe it to be inevitable - Cameron and the British Government have abandoned it on British constitutional grounds but they apparently were prepared to give it a go until they were voted down- they even considered over-riding the vote with a constitutional prerogative - I wonder if you consider them sabre-rattling gung-hoers that you the rest of us of being - doubt it somehow.
If one thing has to come out of all this as far as Britain (or any of our allies) is concerned, is a reversal of the present policy of arms sales, Britain being a major indulger in this filthy trade.
I notice you still attempt to forget your revolting attempts to persuade us that selling chemicals to Assad was acceptable, just as you are now attempting to suggest that voluntarily abandoned those sales (also see below)
Regardng your snide reference to PMs - I have received several extremely abusive ones from you of late - the last one this morning - I have once again felt it necessary to warn you not to stalk me - don't push it or I will put them up for all to see; if that fails I will see if something can't be done to block your unwelcome and uncalled for abusive posts
The only reason these disagreements are vaguely "about you" is that you have made yourself an aneurysm to the process of honest, interesting and intelligent discussion.
See below for the facts 'withdrawal' of chemical sales.
Jim Carroll

Britain sold Syria raw materials for chemical weapons, months after war began
by NEWS SOURCES on SEPTEMBER 1, 2013
The Sunday Mail reports: Britain allowed firms to sell chemicals to Syria capable of being used to make nerve gas, the Sunday Mail can reveal today.
Export licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride were granted months after the bloody civil war in the Middle East began.
The chemical is capable of being used to make weapons such as sarin, thought to be the nerve gas used in the attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb which killed nearly 1500 people, including 426 children, 10 days ago.
President Bashar Assad's forces have been blamed for the attack, leading to calls for an armed response from the West.
British MPs voted against joining America in a strike. But last night, President Barack Obama said he will seek the approval of Congress to take military action.
The chemical export licences were granted by Business Secretary Vince Cable's Department for Business, Innovation and Skills last January – 10 months after the Syrian uprising began.
They were only revoked six months later, when the European Union imposed tough sanctions on Assad's regime

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 11:38 AM

Sorry:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/revealed-britain-sold-nerve-gas-2242520
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 12:27 PM

Jim dear, I do not know or understand your need to tell lies about me.
I do not send send anyone abusive pms, especially not you.
Some here will remember you told that one before and looked silly when I posted the actual text.
I would be happy to again.

Never mind if you think it inevitable, do you still advocate a Western invasion of Syria?

Your links are out of date.
The licences were revoked and no flouride was sold.

Someone has and been selling actual serious hard weapons of serious hard death.
It is not Britain though is it.

BTW unarmed means no weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 04:03 PM

It seems that you have moved on from defending the sale of chemicals to making this about you
Happy to put up the couple of abusive posts you have sent recently - or perhaps you would like to pip me at the post and save me the trouble?
Unless yo have evidence that no chemicals were sold - or intended for sale I don't think there is anything more to be said, so far we have only your uncorroborated denials
The fact - if it is a fact than no sale was made it totally immaterial - Britain was fully prepared to licence the sale of chemicals until it was ordered not to by the UN that is all that matters Britain is prepared to sel Weopns of Mass Destruction to monsters, whether the sales went through or no and it is this you have tried to hide by lying and it is this you are now distorting the facts to deny
"do you still advocate a Western invasion of Syria?"
Why to you keep repeating this so moronically - I have made it clear that I believe it to be inevitable - Cameron tried to, the US as far as I can see still intends to - ARE THEY SABRE RATTLING GONG HOERS - they both want to?
Game over, for me at least
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 01:46 AM

Happy to put up the couple of abusive posts you have sent recently

Yes please!
The most abusive you can find.

Jim, you are probably our most prolific authority on Mid East matters.
Many will want to know your view on this.

I thought it madness to launch another Western invasion of another Muslim land, while you advocated or even demanded it.

Inevitable or not, what do you think now?

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 02:32 AM

Britain was fully prepared to licence the sale of chemicals until it was ordered not to by the UN

Don't be silly.
There are no UN sanctions because Russia and China need to send Assad a vast and continuous torrent of weaponry.

It was EU sanctions that got the licence revoked.
The driving force in getting those EU sanctions in place was Britain.
Remember now?

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 02:33 AM

You seem determined to make this another of your one-to-ones and destroy yet another thread for others
You have the details of Britain's involvement in the arms trade and the supplying their intended supplying of materials vital to the manufactute of Sarin weapons.
Whether the shipment was made is neither here nor there - the fact that they agreed to such a shipment to the Assad regime and they only withdrew the license when the U.N. made it illegal to ship such good is enough to show that the various British governments are prepared to implicate the rest of us in war crimes says what has to be said.
Regarding your abusive postings (I still have a dozen of them archived, including some of the most Islamophobic and racist statements I have ever come across) - I have no intention of being party to your nausing up yet another thread by allowing you to create a diversion from yet another corner you have painted yourself into with your nauseating behaviour.
You already have my views on intervention - it coincides (surprisingly) with that o David Cameron, William Hague and the U.S. president - who we have to presume, you equally must regard as "sabre-rattling gung hoers"
I do not claim to be a foremost expert on anything - I am nothing other than a humanitarian who abhors he slaughter of innocent civilians and despises those who support them with lies and distortions
I will certainly comply with your request to post them up- all of them, but I will choose my own time to do so.
Now jusify your appalling behaviour and let others make their contributions without being interrupted by out bickering - stop wrecking threads - please
Also, leave me alone and stop stalking me - I have nothing to say to you - you are an apalling apologist shit - go away.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 02:38 AM

Apologies for typos - must sort out this sticky keyboard
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 02:47 AM

Regarding your abusive postings (I still have a dozen of them archived, including some of the most Islamophobic and racist statements I have ever come across)

Lies Jim.
Anyone who doubts it can have my password and see for themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 06:11 AM

All who know you Jim will also know that you would NEVER sit on ANYTHING that revealed me to be a racist or an Islamophobe.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 06:32 AM

BBC, 1st Sept.
A government spokesman said the UK operates "one of the most rigorous arms export control regimes in the world, and has been at the forefront of implementing an international sanctions regime on Syria".

'Licences revoked'
He added: "In January 2012, we issued licences for sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride. The exporter and recipient company demonstrated that the chemicals were for a legitimate civilian end use - which was for metal finishing of aluminium profiles used in making aluminium showers and aluminium window frames.

"Before any of the chemicals were exported, the licences were revoked following a revision to the sanctions regime which came into force on 17 June 2012."

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 07:34 AM

You carefully did not link your quote, which was an explanation by (the no doubt very unbiased and honest!!) Trade Minister Vince Cable of why the exports were licensed in the first place
What kind of bastard politician licences material which is known essential to the manufacture of Sarin to a dictator six months into the process of slaughtering his own people/
How can you get firm assurances from such a dictator as to what those chemicals will be used for?
What kind of monster, in order to justify such murderous exports, disguises the source of his quote to hide the fact that it comes from a politician hastily attempting to cover his arse following his licensing of such material?
The full article can be found here
"http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/02/syria-exports-cable_n_3854912.html
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 07:43 AM

I stated it was from BBC and gave the date.
The linkmaker, like the rest of Mudcat is grinding very slowly and sometimes fails completely, but here you are.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-23924259

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 07:48 AM

Your link is back to this thread!

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 08:42 AM

This argument between Jim and Keith is quite remarkably pointless. You both think that military action against Assad is appropriate, and that it can be relied m on to improve things rather than make things worse. At present that is the relevant issue, and the stuff you are arguing about is currently irrelevant recent history.

And yet you are both going at it hammer and tongs...

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 08:59 AM

I wish I were certain that an intervention would not make things worse, especially now it seems a much bigger intervention is being planned than we thought.

The chemicals thing was a bit of nonsense, but it was not just Jim who took it up.
A reality check was needed.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 09:49 AM

"but here you are."
As I - and the Huffington link said - a "not us guv" denial by a "British spokeseman" who "would say that, wouldn't he" and not a word of explanation on the morality of selling material to a murderous despot three months into his murder fest.
And how do you reckon they acquired a promise that it wouldn't used for weapons - over a pint in The Duck and Squirrel, do you reckon?
Selling weapon making material is making Britain complicit to horrendous war crimes whatever colour apologists tend to paint it.
And nowhere have you dealt with the outcry in the British Parliament over the licensing of the sale - though you are fully aware of it - what kind of....?
You deliberately selected a piece which deals only with government denials - your support for Israeli terrorism all over again
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 10:04 AM

The Huff Post piece which you failed to provide a link for, is outdated because Vince Cable's response is not covered.
The story is dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Stringsinger
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 10:08 AM

There are no authorities here on Mudcat on the Mid-East issue. The authorities that
one cites differ greatly on what approach should be taken in regards to Syria.

I will cite one that I trust, Fawaz Gerges of the London School of Economics who I
say is a sane voice amongst the saber-rattling babble.

It's not so easy to say if you take out Assad all will be well. His government has allies
that must be considered to avoid another world war.

Again, the reason Russia is obstinate in wanting to censure Assad is that it is afraid
of U.S. military hegemony. Putin and Obama have to get together and have trust for
one another, not an escalation of the Cold War.

In the meantime, a curbing of the weapons making industry would help go a long way
toward avoiding a crisis.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 04:18 AM

"which you failed to provide a link for"
The link was provided, read other peoples posts properly Keith (03 Sep 13 - 07:43 AM)
You are the one who consistently and deliberately fails to provide links.
It is only dead to your dead brain, unless you mean "the story is "death" to your arguments.
The fact remains that Cable licensed and was prepared to allow a shipment of chemicals which were essential to the manufacture of Sarin weapons, and would have let it go through had he not been prevented from doing so by the U.N.
That fact will never go away - but there again, you may have meant to write, "the story is death" - to the Syrian slaughtered
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 04:23 AM

Your link did not work.
The article was pre Cable's response anyway.
My BBC piece told the whole story.
There is no story.

BBC, 1st Sept.
A government spokesman said the UK operates "one of the most rigorous arms export control regimes in the world, and has been at the forefront of implementing an international sanctions regime on Syria".

'Licences revoked'
He added: "In January 2012, we issued licences for sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride. The exporter and recipient company demonstrated that the chemicals were for a legitimate civilian end use - which was for metal finishing of aluminium profiles used in making aluminium showers and aluminium window frames.

"Before any of the chemicals were exported, the licences were revoked following a revision to the sanctions regime which came into force on 17 June 2012."

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 06:23 AM

My BBC piece told the whole story." nobody is that naive surely.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 06:39 AM

OK, the BBC, which has a reputation for honesty and impartiality, told more of the story than the Huf Post piece because it included the response from government.
Thank you for you interest.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: selby
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 06:55 AM

Just under 50% of the posts on this thread are two people not agreeing with each other Democracy in action, Syrians want democracy we have a democracy and our democratic process has said we do not bomb Syria. We cannot dictate to the world about democracy if we then ignore the process. Far from upsetting our standing in the world I believe we have strengthened it Our politicians have shown Democracy in action.
Just my view.
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 04:16 PM

" nobody is that naive surely."
Surely the point of this is not that that the licence was revoked, but that it was ever issued in the first place, especially as it had been issued six months into the fighting.
The fact that it was withdrawn only after the U.N. declared it not acceptable only underlines that dealing with terrorist states in the act of committing terrorist acts is not on.
Selling arms to Governments whose records on human rights are known to be appalling is bad enough, selling them while their people are protesting human rights abuses can only lead to those governments using them against their people them to maintain their positions of power.
Britain's Arms Fair, aimed specifically at Middle Eastern countries, including Bahrain a month or so after the Arab Spring protests had started was totally unacceptable.
This is not to single Britain out especially, we may disapprove of any power acting similarly, but it is only our own governments who are supposed to be answerable to us and who rely on our votes to keep them in office, that's the theory anyway - they are acting with our electoral blessing - Russia and China are not.
Selling components that are essential to the manufacture of chemical weapons to a government that was always likely to use them against their opponents if necessary makes us all accomplices to war crimes - in never gets more straightforward than that.
Whatever the outcome of the Syrian conflict, surely one thing that must come out of it is that those countries involved in the arms trade must clean up their acts otherwise they implicate us all in war crimes, as has happened here.
Stricter arms sales control enforceable by the United Nations is, as far s I'm concerned, as inevitable as intevention in Syria.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 05:27 PM

The fact that it was withdrawn only after the U.N. declared it not acceptable

As I told you before, there are no UN sanctions because Russia would not allow it.
They have been and are supplying weapons to Assadl the whole time.

The sanctions are EU sanctions, instigated mainly by Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Stringsinger
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 05:54 PM

"As I told you before, there are no UN sanctions because Russia would not allow it."

Ban Ki Moon has expressed his views that military options will not solve anything.
Russia is scared of U.S. hegemony which well they might be. Putin has no reason to trust Obama. When you set military standards to solve a problem, those who have misgivings
that these standards will break out of control will protest as well they should. We'll see how effective the meeting between Putin and Obama will be.

EU sanctions are based on a rational approach to this issue. Europe has seen the devastation of war on its continent whereas the U.S., not having this experience,
is in a bubble of propaganda.

"Selling components that are essential to the manufacture of chemical weapons to a government..........." Jim has pointed out the pattern that American arms manufacturers have followed for decades. Sell weapons to dictators only to cry foul later when they are used. If sarin is used, where do you think Assad got it? When Hussein gassed the Kurds,
who supported him up to that point? This pattern of supporting dictators when it's politically advantageous to munitions corporations and the Pentagon has got to stop.

Obama and Cameron deserve to be defeated.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 07:38 PM

"Obama and Cameron deserve to be defeated."
Then the world has to come up with an alternative.
The Arab Spring offered a challenge to many of the despots that have ruled the Middle Eastern countries and caused much of the trouble there.
The West has gone along with many of these despots because it was in their interests to do so, oil being the main attraction; it was largely this that forced a degree of support for the Arab Spring protests, a hope to maintain their oil supplies whoever took over.
Whatever oil Syria has will run dry within the next fourteen years and Syria will become an oil dependent country, so she is of no real interest as a trading partner to the West.
Past tolerance of Syrian human rights abuses has led to the present situation in Syria; up to now the world has given the Assad family a free hand and allowed him to use whatever methods he chose to subdue his people, he has even been sold arms to maintain his grip on the country, before and after the revolts began.
Western inaction has led to the protests in Syria turning into a civil war, largely using the Russian/Chinese vetoes as an excuse to do nothing; David Steele put it in a nutshell at the time the people of Homs were being slaughtered, "it is not in Britain's interest to get involved".
If Assad gets away with what he is doing, the Middle East will remain    a series of feudalistic states run by despots, and whatever progress has been made through the revolts stand a fair chance of being lost.
The West cannot stand by and let that happen; morally we are obligated to make up for our various governments' past mercenary policy in supporting the human-rights monsters and allowing them to indulge in their monstrous behavior, even by supplying them with the wherewithal to do so.
Politically it is in our interest to bring Assad down and see that his behaviour is not repeated elsewhere.   
To do nothing is only a continuation of the West's policy of turning a blind eye and selling despots weapons to establish a degree of stability within their realms - 'let the Arms Trade Fairs continue'.
It is interesting to remember that in January 1980, around the time fifty-two Americans had been held hostage in Iran for 444 days, Time Magazine named Ayatollah Khomeini 'Man of the Year' - Western predatory cynicism at its best.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 03:39 AM

External military overthrow of dictators has in many respects made matters worse in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, precisely because there was no internal tradition for the rule of law.

Something similar but different can be said of Iran and Egypt - where revolutions were internal but successful, and at best one dictator was in fact replaced by another.

I am reasonably confident that parallels can be found throughout Africa, and the Indian subcontinent gives little ground for confidence in the democratic model.

Is there a fully functioning democracy in any jurisdiction in what used to be called "the East Indies"?

There are many problem jurisdictions in the West Indies, and South America too.

Is the answer to be drawn that democratic capitalism is collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions? Is this linked to the fact that nobody at all (except me) seems to care that one of the first things our present UK government did on coming to power was to make it more difficult for that government to be removed via a vote of confidence or tantamount to a vote of confidence?

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 08:31 AM

Can't really disagree with that Richard.
I'm staggered at finding myself agreeing with Cameron and the US on this - my old man must be spinning in his urn.
It's hard to believe that they are acting on conscience instead of political expediency for a change, but everything else seems to be just self-interest, which got us to where we now (or Syria now is) in the first place.
I really can't see any alternative other than to let Assad continue with the slaughter, anything else would be sheer copping out of a mess we are partially responsible for.
Any ides hwere we should go from here - and please don't tell me what 'should' have happened.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 08:46 AM

I agree, except on us being partly to blame.
We did not start the Arab Spring uprisings that triggered this uprising.
We did not put the Assads in place.
We have had no opportunity to remove them.
What did we do?

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 11:06 AM

Wasn't addressing you Keith - not while the adults are talking if you don't mind
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 11:52 AM

Any ides hwere we should go from here - and please don't tell me what 'should' have happened.
Jim Carroll

Should/can we do anything anyway.Their change has to come from within their own society, nothing can be imposed on them that fails we know this fro history.We can't arm the organ eating General and his ilk either.The US and the west have blown it, any outside intervention has to be peaceful and from another source..not us.We have no credibility bar more death and military force.(And as for evil growing because good men do nothing..show me the selflessly intention-ed good men from the western powers)

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 12:29 PM

"Their change has to come from within their own society"
Tell that to the woman photographed in Homs carrying a dead child who had just had half of its head blown away by a (possibly British) sniper bullet
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 01:46 PM

Not possibly a British sniper bullet, unless you have a single scrap of evidence that any were ever supplied.
Your need to demonize Britain is sreange and irrational Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: GUEST,Musket being patriotic
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 02:11 PM

For once.

Companies may apply for licences to supply goods and hoodwink the authorities as to the intentions.

This is not exactly UK supplying chemical warfare goods.

You know, this Jim Carroll prat could be dangerous if he had an audience. As it is, he can't even live in the country he reminds us of his hatred of.

Busted flush.

Yes, I am sure the Syrian army could do a great deal of mischief with such raw materials. So could any other army or organised group.

I am not happy about allowing monsters to terrorise their own people. Neither am I happy about the void being filled by a radical theocracy. The subject here though is UK Parliament and whatever the issues, the idea of Parliament debating and not allowing a government wish to prevail is called democracy.

Democratic votes are not confidence votes, the stakes are not dissolution of Parliament,tthey are purely about whether we wish to believe either side is fighting a dirtier war than normal. All war against your civilians is dirty and I applaud and pity politicians who are having to earn their keep in this regard.   The knock about media fun over lowering the esteem of politics and the shallow idiots seeking office get a wake up call when having to decide huge issues.

Whatever my preferred outcome, and I don't have one by the way due to not having all the facts, just like all those who have formed opinions without facts, I actually feel relieved that Parliament is becoming relevant once more.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 02:41 PM

Parliament indeed.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2410261/Parliaments-computers-used-log-porn-websites-300-000-times-year.html

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 03:30 PM

"Your need to demonize Britain is sreange and irrational Jim."
And your own desire to defend Britains complicity is even stranger Keith.
You really don't get it do you – or you hope nobody remembers exactly what you wrote
It really doesn't matter what was sold, (you said "sniper rifles" by the way, which makes your bloodless indifference to massacring people ten times worse) the fact that Britain sold anything from a peashooter to a Pershing missile to a monster in the process of slaughtering his own people already makes her accomplices to genocide.
As for your own attitude – you passed off what you already knew were weapon sales as "all you could come up with were some sniper rifles" at a time Assad's snipers were blowing the faces off babes in arms in Homs - what kind of inhuman bastard would make such an excuse?
You further offered the excuse that it was ok for Britain to do it as others were as well – this has been your recurring theme through both the Syrian and the Israeli threads.

Your posting:
Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 11 Feb 12 - 09:21 AM
"But why do you ONLY criticise Britain?
Not Russia.
Not China.
Not Syria.
Britain is hardly in the same league.
You have clearly been searching vigorously, but all you have come up with is some sniper rifles.
The only other "weapons" supplied were armour plated buses, tear gas and water cannon."

Your dopey Terrytoon mate backed you up and even provided a reason why there was no reason to sell sniper rifles to Assad; bearing in mind that he is a self-declared weapons expert and even went so far as to show us his own weapon on the Homs thread – my heart hasn't stopped beating rapidly since.
His posting:
Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: GUEST,Teribus - PM
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 12:29 AM
"Guess what "Jim Lad" - Snipers have to practice - they do rather a lot of it."

I don't really understand what makes you pair of thus tick – if they are only "a few sniper rifles", why are you spending so much time denying your own suggestion?
Your "The only other "weapons" supplied were armour plated buses, tear gas and water cannon."" is beneath comment – unnecessary to do so anyway as it speaks for itself.
Your mosquito-like irritancy has tempted me refresh the "Homs Horror" thread here so we can all put your present stance in context alongside your past disgusting suggestions.
I will do so is you persist in interrupting serious contributors with your inanities.
Anyway – as Mae West once said, "a girl con only take so much pleasure in one night" and I'll already be going to bed with a smile on my face
Now please go away.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 03:39 PM

"As it is, he can't even live in the country he reminds us of his hatred of."
You've finally sunk to Keith's flag-wagging sewer level Musty - inevitable I suppose.
Do you regard Cameron as equally "dangerous" dangerous, but there again, free speech is often regarded thus by reactionary prats.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 04:23 PM

I am your only source that sniper rifles and rounds went to Syria, and I refute it.
You KNOW it is not true for I have told you many times and in all that time you have found nothing to substatiate it, because as you well know it is false.

The truth is not bad enough so you must make up lies.
Your obsessive hatred of us has turned your mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 09:35 PM

"Your obsessive hatred of us has turned your mind."
You are doing it again Keith and you have totally sidestepped all your 'Sniper rifle claims'
I do not hate 'us'
I do hate the politicians who sign permits allowing chemical weapons to be sold to murderous dictators - whether they are later forced to withdraw them or not.
I hate the bastards who send weapons to the dictators who might have used them to cut down men, women and children on the streets of Homs.
I hate the animals who try to sell arms to regimes you have described yourself as undemocratic, months into efforts to overthrow those regimes.
Further afield, I hate Prime Ministers who befriend a mass murderer dictator and strenuously worked to prevent him from being brought to justice.
Above all, I hate the slimy bastards who hide behind lies, distortions, prevarications and silence to defend the above bastards - if the cap fits....!
As far as the British people as a whole are concerned - I believe us to be warm, kind, artistically creative, hard working and by and large tolerant.
I may not agree with the attitude of those who fell for the "Britannia rules the Waves" con, or those who accepted the 'echoes of Empire' line that to be foreign was to be "in errors chain" as the good old Empire hymn we all intoned at school told, but such people are to be found in Ireland, France, Germany, the U.S..... but that's to disagree with them, not to hate them
Britons gave me my skills as a tradesmen, their music and song gave me a lifetime's pleasure, I take a pride in being a part of the British working class that feeds, clothes, heats, and lights our nation, their poets, authors and playwrights still have the power to nve me to laughter or tears - that is the Britain I love and respect - not the shower of shite who feed on the rest of us and drag our name down into the slime.
How dare you accuse me of hating Britain or the British - it is garbage like you who is aiding and abetting these animals with your lies and your silence and your denials of their inhuman behaviour.
Can I assume that you are not even going to attempt to explain why you welcomed the sale of (as you believed then) weapons to a murdering dictator as only "a few sniper rifles"?
Not "lies" Keith - your own words as quoted above and ignored by you - and will continued to be so ignored.
One more time:
"You have clearly been searching vigorously, but all you have come up with is some sniper rifles. The only other "weapons" supplied were armour plated buses, tear gas and water cannon."
Sweet dreams.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 01:24 AM

"Britain is a deeply racist country"

You would have to hate us to believe or say a statement like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: GUEST,Musket being patriotic
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 03:04 AM

The issue for me is being seen to agree with Keith too much. But sorry Mr Carroll, you can't throw the odd grenade then follow it up with a heart bleeding speech about your civic pride. Consistency may be a useful tool if you wish to be taken seriously. Keith is consistent. I doubt I agree with a lot he writes but he forms his views from what he sees as fact.

The opposite of that of course is the guest who above tried to ridicule my temporary faith in Parliamentary procedure by pointing out the amount of porn downloaded in The Palace of Westminster. Utterly irrelevant, not even as regarding MPs. 94% of the people in the building during the day are not MPs, and if downloading the odd porn image is a bar from debate, Max may as well take this irrelevant website down for good eh?

Stick to facts. The UK do not manufacture chemical warfare goods and send them to dictators. When UK based companies are found doing so, they become Matrix Churchill or Forge Masters. We all get to know and politicians fall over each other to condemn and prosecute.

A good day for democracy but possibly not a good day for Syrian civilians. Life can be a bitch at times.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 04:01 AM

Keith
Enough is enough.
It has become impossible to discuss British policy critically in any shape or form with you without being accused of being 'anti British'
It has become impossible for me as a British citizen living abroad to criticise British policy without the fact that I have chosen to no longer live in Britain to be used as a substitute for argument.
This has now reached the stage where to criticise British policy is now eliciting accusations of "mental instability"
This fanatical attitude has surfaced over and over again on thread after thread and has driven them into the ground.
Similarly, on the subject of Israel, it has become virtually impossible to discuss the Middle East without being accused of Antisemitism implicitly or explicitly, by you and others.
I have always, without exception, attempted to dealt in the facts in hand rather than the ethnic origins or religious beliefs of those involved - that has been my practice throughout my life - it is how I have been brought up to behave.
I am not particularly proud of my dealings with you and I am quite aware I have not handled them well, but this really is the last straw.
If you, Muskett, Bearded Bruce..... or anybody else on this forum ever again resorts to these tactics I will have no hesitation but to make a formal complaint to the administrators and attempt to have you removed from the relevant threads.
If you continue you behave in the way you have here, anywhere else on this forum I will ask that you be disbarred from membership altogether, as I honestly believe that your behaviour has not only destroyed threads, sometimes in my opinion, deliberately, but it is also in danger of bringing the reputation of this forum into disrepute.
I have never since joining this forum ever even considered such an action.
I will not take these discussion off forum as you have consistently requested - I have no interest in your views any more than I assume you have any in mine, and being forced to to discuss my opinions and beliefs in secret negates my and anybody else's reason for being a member of a 'Public Forum'.
Stick to the the facts of the subjects in hand as you see them, or the next time this behavior is repeated I will have no hesitation in carrying out my stated intention.
This applies equally to you "Guest Muskett being patriotic", as you appear to have adopted Keith's level of argument (though in your case, I am not sure of your position as you have appear to have chosen no longer to be a member of this forum anyway)
Enough!!   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 04:28 AM

One consequence of Cameron's defeat is that we are not nearly as influential in the international forum.
The Russians were very rude and dismissive of us at G20.
Does it matter?

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 05:16 AM

I'm a member of this forum.

UK do not supply chemical warfare goods to anybody.

Pointing out the absurdity of a person's position isn't grounds to go running to the Mudelves complaining.

I haven't adopted anything from Keith, least of all his views.



There. Plenty above for you to contradict. Or put another way, plenty more material with which you have the continued opportunity to say "Here's my arse, please kick it."

One up side of Internet forums versus the pub or at someone's house. You don't feel the need to look and think "He's too old to take his views seriously so I'll just humour him." Come out with bollocks and people might just point out how round and hairy they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 06:59 AM

"UK do not supply chemical warfare goods to anybody."
The UK authorities issued a license for the sale of materials essential to the manufacture of Saron weapons to Syria - this is a documented fact beyond dispute.
They only withdrew that license at the demand of the United Nations - this is also a documented fact beyond dispute.
Saron has been identified as having been used in Syria, proving that the Assad regime is fully prepared to resort to such methods to quell opposition.
The U.K. sold small arms ammunition to Syria shortly before their snipers opened fire the citizens of Homs - this is also a documented fact beyond dispute.
They were sold "armour plated buses, tear gas and water cannon" which were all used on protesting Syrians during the opening months of the protests
Tear gas is a "non-lethal chemical weapon" - the rest are means of suppression, control and killing - all have been licensed by the British government and sold by British firms.   
"Pointing out the absurdity of a person's position isn't grounds to go running to the Mudelves complaining."
Accusing me of hating Britain - "As it is, he can't even live in the country he reminds us of his hatred of" as an alternative to argument, and suggesting that because I no longer live in Britain I have no right to criticise her policies is.
"I haven't adopted anything from Keith, least of all his views"
Whether you have "adopted them" or not is immaterial, you have now joined him in his same squalid accusations, substituting them for arguments.
You have both had my last word on this, I won't bother to mention it again.
The only thing I have yet to decide is whether to include Keith's perpetual filibustering technique in any complaint I might make - I believe this to be equally, if not far more damaging to the well-being of this forum.
Last word!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 07:26 AM

The U.K. sold small arms ammunition to Syria shortly before their snipers opened fire the citizens of Homs

No. Years before.

They only withdrew that license at the demand of the United Nations - this is also a documented fact beyond dispute.

No.
UN has no trade restrictions against Syria, because of Russia and China who supply all Assad's weapons and ammunition.

It was EU restrictions put in place at the instigation of Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 07:53 AM

Will deal with your denials later.
This from four days ago - not out of date.

REVEALED: UK GOVERNMENT LET BRITISH COMPANY EXPORT NERVE GAS CHEMICALS TO SYRIA
UK accused of 'breath-taking laxity' over export licence for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride
CAHAL MILMO   , ANDY MCSMITH , NIKHIL KUMAR

MONDAY 02 SEPTEMBER 2013
The Government was accused of "breathtaking laxity" in its arms controls last night after it emerged that officials authorised the export to Syria of two chemicals capable of being used to make a nerve agent such as sarin a year ago.
The Business Secretary, Vince Cable, will today be asked by MPs to explain why a British company was granted export licences for the dual-use substances for six months in 2012 while Syria's civil war was raging and concern was rife that the regime could use chemical weapons on its own people. The disclosure of the licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride, which can both be used as precursor chemicals in the manufacture of nerve gas, came as the US Secretary of State John Kerry said the United States had evidence that sarin gas was used in last month's atrocity in Damascus.
Mr Kerry announced that traces of the nerve agent, found in hair and blood samples taken from victims of the attack in the Syrian capital which claimed more than 1,400 lives, were part of a case being built by the Obama administration for military intervention as it launched a full-scale political offensive on Sunday to persuade a sceptical Congress to approve a military strike against Syria.
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills insisted that although the licences were granted to an unnamed UK chemical company in January 2012, the substances were not sent to Syria before the permits were eventually revoked last July in response to tightened European Union sanctions.
In a previously unpublicised letter to MPs last year, Mr Cable acknowledged that his officials had authorised the export of an unspecified quantity of the chemicals in the knowledge that they were listed on an international schedule of chemical weapon precursors.
Downing Street insisted today that Britain's system for approving arms exports to Syria is working even though licences for two chemicals capable of being used in making nerve gas were approved by the Government and blocked only by EU sanctions.
The Prime Minister's official spokesman said: "You see the system working, with materials not exported. The facts are that the licences were revoked and the exports did not take place. The Prime Minister's view is that that demonstrates that the system is working. There is a sanctions regime, which is a very active part."
Critics of the Business Secretary, whose department said it had accepted assurances from the exporting company that the chemicals would be used in the manufacture of metal window frames and shower enclosures, said it appeared the substances had only stayed out of Syria by chance.
The shadow Business Secretary Chuka Umunna told The Independent: "It will be a relief that the chemicals concerned were never actually delivered. But, in light of the fact the Assad regime had already been violently oppressing internal dissent for many months by the beginning of 2012 and the intelligence now indicates use of chemical weapons on multiple occasions, a full explanation is needed as to why the export of these chemicals was approved in the first place."
The Labour MP Thomas Docherty, a member of the Commons Arms Export Controls Committee, will today table parliamentary questions demanding to know why the licences were granted and to whom.
He said: "This would seem to be a case of breath-taking laxity – the Government has had a very lucky escape indeed that these chemicals were not sent to Syria.
"What was Mr Cable's department doing authorising the sale of chemicals which by their own admission had a dual use as precursors for chemical weapons at a time when the Syria's war was long under way?"
The licences for the two chemicals were granted on 17 and 18 January last year for "use in industrial processes" after being assessed by Department for Business officials to judge if "there was a clear risk that they might be used for internal repression or be diverted for such an end", according to the letter sent by Mr Cable to the arms controls committee.
Mr Cable said: "The licences were granted because at the time there were no grounds for refusal."
Although the export deal, first reported by The Sunday Mail in Scotland, was outlawed by the EU on 17 June last year in a package of sanctions against the regime of Bashar al-Assad, the licences were not revoked until 30 July. Chemical weapons experts said that although the two substances have a variety of uses such as the fluoridation of drinking water, sodium and potassium fluoride are also key to producing the chemical effect which makes a nerve agent such as sarin so toxic.
Western intelligence has long suspected the Syrian regime of using front companies to divert dual-use materials imported for industrial purposes into its weapons programmes. It is believed that chemical weapons including sarin have been used in the Syrian conflict on 14 occasions since 2012.
Mr Cable's department last night insisted it was satisfied that the export licence was correctly granted. A spokesman said: "The UK Government operates one of the most rigorous arms export control regimes in the world.
"The exporter and recipient company demonstrated that the chemicals were for a legitimate civilian end-use – which was for metal finishing of aluminium profiles used in making aluminium showers and aluminium window frames."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-uk-government-let-british-company-export-nerve-gas-chemicals-to-syria-879

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 08:19 AM

The link appears not to be working
Try this alternative
http://cobbnewsandtech.blogspot.ie/2013/09/uk-government-let-british-company.html
The shit has now hit the fan regarding Britain's greed sale of chemical weapons components and it spread all over the net.
Britain has been disgraced internationally
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 08:36 AM

Extract from Jim's cut/paste.

"Mr Cable said: "The licences were granted because at the time there were no grounds for refusal."
.......
Mr Cable's department last night insisted it was satisfied that the export licence was correctly granted. A spokesman said: "The UK Government operates one of the most rigorous arms export control regimes in the world.
"The exporter and recipient company demonstrated that the chemicals were for a legitimate civilian end-use – which was for metal finishing of aluminium profiles used in making aluminium showers and aluminium window frames." "

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 08:59 AM

""Mr Cable said: "The licences were granted because at the time there were no grounds for refusal.""A government denial from the trade secretary - my apologies, I must have made a mistake!!

To see ourselves as others see us

"The report showed that since 2009 export licences were approved for the sale of machineguns to Bahrain and Egypt, small arms ammunition to Syria and sniper rifles to Saudi Arabia."
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/3/12/20716/Business/Economy/Britain-eyes-Mideast-export-deals-at-London-arms-f.aspx

"Britain is selling millions of pounds worth of small arms and ammunition to Sri Lanka despite the country's dire human rights record, The Independent can disclose today. Figures taken from the Government's own database show how the authorities in Colombo have gone on a buying spree of British small arms and weaponry worth at least £3m.
http://www.onlanka.com/news/britain-sells-arms-to-sri-lanka-the-independent.html

LONDON — Britain has issued billions of dollars' worth of export licenses for the sale of military equipment to states that are considered possible rights violators, it was revealed on Wednesday. The countries include Syria, Iran and China.
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/153245/british-lawmakers-voice-concerns-over-arms-exports.html

http://health.kompas.com/read/2011/04/05/08350116/

http://www.defenceviewpoints.co.uk/articles-and-analysis/britains-love-for-the-arms-trade

You'll have to excuse my not blue clickieing the last three links - the device appears to have gone up the pictures, Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 09:08 AM

There you go - all's right and God is in his Heaven
Jim Carroll

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/153245/british-lawmakers-voice-concerns-over-arms-exports.html

http://health.kompas.com/read/2011/04/05/08350116/

http://www.defenceviewpoints.co.uk/articles-and-analysis/britains-love-for-the-arms-trade

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 09:23 AM

""Mr Cable said: "The licences were granted because at the time there were no grounds for refusal.""A government denial from the trade secretary - my apologies, I must have made a mistake!!

It was put at the very end because it kills the story.
And the story died.
Nothing today.
Nothing yesterday.
Dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 11:08 AM

"It was put at the very end because it kills the story."
It was put at the end because it was an earlier government denial, repeated because of the fact that the matter is to be debated in Parliament - that's just about how dead it is.
Selling components for chemical weapons to human rights abusers is never "dead" - the victims of those weapons often are, or blinded and maimed, but it remains an act tantamount to aiding and abetting war criminals to commit war crimes, or in this case, the intention to do so.
You have refused to address Britain's record on selling weapons to war criminals, actual or potential and have entered into your 'repetition' mode - you are now filibustering; I have little doubt that you will contiune to ignore Britain's selling arms to murderous despots.
All of which more-or-less has decided me that, if I do have cause to report you for attempting to block my right to express an opinion by using my 'non-residence' or if you (or any of your mates - One for all and all for on) once more suggest that I am mentally unstable, anti British or Anti-Semitic for criticising Britain's Arms sales policy or Israel's human rights abuses - or anything else on this forum, I will include a complaint on your filibustering tactics.
Have a good day.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 11:17 AM

It has been dropped since Cable rubbished it.
That piece was Monday and no-one has bothered with it since.
A non-story.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 07:13 PM

""Is this linked to the fact that nobody at all (except me) seems to care that one of the first things our present UK government did on coming to power was to make it more difficult for that government to be removed via a vote of confidence or tantamount to a vote of confidence?""

Are you objecting to the fact that a fixed term levels the playing field for all parties, including, but most definitely not solely, the Tories?

And are you also saying that a democratic vote is only valid when Labour win and that only Labour should survive the losing of such a vote?

As I understand democracy, you win some, you lose some, neither of which demands resignation or we'd have no politicians left, of either stripe.

For me, the only only game decider for resignation is a direct motion of no confidence, the initiator of which should be required to resign if it fails.

Don T.