BS: Cameron defeat in parliament

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 04:12 PM

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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.