BS: chemical weapons in Syria

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 09:59 AM

I understand that point Keith, but surely that only gives the signal that it's alright to slaughter any democratic opposition, as long as you don't use gas to do so?

If you open fire with live ammunition into a crowd of demonstrators, the bullets are just as lethal and indiscriminate as gas?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 09:50 AM

Why do we not strike them?

This is just about the use of chemical weapons.
We can not intervene in every dispute and perceived injustice in every country.

If the world comes to accept the use of chemical weapons, the world will be a worse place.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: gnu
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 09:44 AM

UN inspectors leave Saturday. Saturday night? Sunday night?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 09:34 AM

Teribus
"So far they can talk about it all they like, the veto power of Russia and China blocks any good that the UN might have been able to do, not surprising that really as both of those states do not want to set uncomfortable precedents as they may wish to attack sections of their own populations before too long - (Sorry what was that you said? - Oh yes, Chechnya, Dagestan and Tibet I had forgotten all about them).

Surely you know Mr T, that the US has used its veto in the UN many times, to protect violations by Israel?

Islamic Fundamentalism is also, I would think, a more serious and present threat to Russia and China, than it is to we in the WEST?

I would be interested in your opinion of the West's reaction to the overthrow of "democracy" in Egypt and the subsequent slaughter of hundreds of demonstrators......was that not an attack on their own populace?.....Why do we not strike THEM??

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 09:23 AM

America has just announced that it will attempt to assemble an international force to intervene in Syria


Plus ça change

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 09:00 AM

Welcome to the Arms Trade
Jim Carroll

BRITAIN HAS APPROVED MORE THAN £12BN IN MILITARY SALES TO COUNTRIES IT CONDEMNS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES, INCLUDING SYRIA.
1:36pm UK, Wednesday 17 July 2013
By David Bowden, Defence Correspondent

Britain has sold industrial materials to Syria that could have been used to make chemical weapons, according to a new report by MPs on arms sales.
The Commons Committees on Arms Export Controls (CAEC) said it was just one example of numerous questionable deals between UK contractors and countries the Foreign Office (FCO) deems to have poor human rights records. 　
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.
MPs have fired a warning shot across the Government's bows, questioning the checks made on more than 3,000 export licences worth over £12bn to 27 countries on the FCO's own list of countries of human rights concern.
While the CAEC acknowledged many of the licences were for dual-use (military or civilian) items or other equipment which could not readily be used for "internal repression", the MPs said the numbers were still "surprisingly large".
The biggest chunk of the £12bn comes from Israel, which accounts for £7.8bn.
The Saudis are next, with close to £1.9bn, and China is third, with almost £1.4bn.
The UK also has licences to sell arms to Iran, Egypt and Syria among many others.
"The scale of the extant strategic licences to the Foreign Office's 27 countries of human rights concern puts into stark relief the inherent conflict between the Government's arms exports and human rights policies," said CAEC chairman Sir John Stanley.
Licences to Israel account for almost £8bn
"The committees adhere to their previous recommendation that the Government should apply significantly more cautious judgements when considering arms export licence applications for goods to authoritarian regimes 'which might be used to facilitate internal repression' in contravention of the Government's stated policy."
Labour MP Richard Burden, who chairs the Britain-Palestine All Party Parliamentary Group, said the amount going to Israel was "astonishing".
"What is most striking is that over half of the total is going to 'Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories'," he said.
"Look a little closer and you see that almost all of those exports are going to Israel, with only £5,539 going to the Occupied Territories.
"Look closer still and you see something utterly astonishing - 380 different licences have been granted for exports of arms and military equipment to Israel.
"However, £7,765,450,000 of the £7.8bn worth of equipment exported to Israel is covered by just one licence approval - for equipment employing cryptography and software for equipment employing cryptography.
"This is bizarre, particularly as there are scores of other licences granted for export of cryptography equipment and software which have a substantial value - but still only add up to a tiny fraction of this amount.
"I am tabling questions to the minister today to find out just what this licence was all about. Is just one company involved? Why does the scale of this licence dwarf all others with similar titles? What does the contact actually involve?"
Prime Minister David Cameron has made no secret of his desire to push British defence sales and has led missions to India, the Gulf and Saudi Arabia to try and bring in multimillion-pound deals, even though Saudi Arabia is among the states on the concern list from the Foreign Office.
Mr Cameron led a mission to Saudi Arabia in 2012
As well as Saudi Arabia, the FCO's concern list comprises Afghanistan, Belarus, Burma, China, Colombia, Cuba, North Korea, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Fiji, Iran, Iraq, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Libya, Pakistan, Russia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen and Zimbabwe.
Argentina is one of five additional countries about which the CAEC has raised concern - the others are Bahrain, Egypt, Madagascar and Tunisia.
The arms business allows nations to buy diplomatic and political clout by selling weapons and technology whilst at the same time protecting hundreds of thousands of jobs back home.
But the problem it seems from this latest report is making sure it is known who is getting their hands on that technology in the end.
A Department for Business, Innovation and Skills spokesman said the Government "operates one of the most rigorous arms export control regimes in the world".
"An export licence would not be granted where we assess there is a clear risk the goods might be used for internal repression, provoke or prolong conflict within a country, be used aggressively against another country or risk our national security," he said.
"All licences highlighted in the committees' report were fully assessed against a range of internationally agreed stringent criteria which take into account the circumstances at the time the licence application was made.
"When circumstances change or new information comes to light we can - and do - revoke extant licences where the proposed export is no longer consistent with the criteria."
Amnesty International's arms control expert Oliver Sprague has called for greater transparency.
"Looking at these, the Government's own figures, it would be hard not to conclude that the UK Government's arms sales practices are at odds with its stated policy not to send weapons to anywhere that poses a clear risk that they could be used for human rights violations," he said.
"What is needed now is an urgent explanation of what these licences were actually for, who was going to use them and what assurances were in place to ensure they were not going to be used for human rights violations.
"Until there is much greater transparency over exactly what we are selling and to whom, it will be impossible for Parliament or the public to have confidence in the UK's arms sales policies."


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

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 08:13 AM

America has just announced that it will attempt to assemble an international force to intervene in Syria despite Britain's decision not to get involved
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 08:01 AM

I'm amazed how perceptive the politicians have become....They've realised that they have been "rumbled", that the electorate do not trust them, that we know they lie every time they open their mouths, so they have done something sensible for once and voted for no military strikes on Syria

They are of course still working in their QWN interests, they hope we will think they have changed, started to look at the interests of those who elected them, but don't be fooled, this is just one small victory in what is surely a war of attrition.

Cameron has overstepped the mark, taken the "stupidity" of the electorate for granted......he is finished.
Something radical may be about to happen.

Mr Obama still has a big problem in Mrs Hawk who will beat the war drum loud and hard........you folks are going to have to move your arses damn quick.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 06:32 AM

What on earth is the point of arguing about how much of the damage was caused by The US or Britain etc directly? The only significant question is how to minimise ther harm done in the present and future. There's quite enough to argue about in that without wasting energy trying to dig up the bodies,

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 05:58 AM

"I maintain that depleted uranium was used on Iraq and is one of the components of the destruction of the health of the Iraqi people. This has been verified." - Stringsinger

Well no you claimed that depleted uranium was used in cluster bombs in Iraq - put quite simply - it wasn't.

DU ammunition was used in the area:

1: Probably in great quantities during the eight year long Iran/Iraq War 1980 to 1988 (But of course that would have no detrimental impact on the health of the Iraqi people as it wasn't fired by the US or any of their allies).

2: It was fired in great quantities during desert storm January to March 1991 at Iraqi armour in locations far removed from any large centres of population. (But of course only that fired by the US and their allies would have had a detrimental impact on the health of the Iraqi people)

3: A shed load of it was fired by Saddam Hussein's Hind gunships as they suppressed the Shia rebellion in and around Basra in the immediate aftermath of Desert Storm (Estimated death toll was ~200,000) were in addition to all those DU rounds Saddam drained marshes and poisoned ground water to punish the Ma'dan who had to flee to Iran or get killed (But of course none of that had a detrimental effect on the health of the people of Iraq)

4: Very little was fired during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and what was fired was restricted to attacking armour (But of course all of this had a marked and detrimental effect on the health of the Iraqi people)

As far as I am aware no-one is advocating an invasion of Syria and as of the vote of the House of Commons last night the UK will be taking no action at all - just as well really as we have got nothing to take any action with.

As for "Christmas's" contentions about the vast arsenal of weapons sent to Syria by Britain:

A) All he can come up with is the granting of an export licence for NATO standard rifle ammunition (115,000 rounds) with no evidence whatsoever that the shipment was ever made.

B) The licence was granted in 2009 (Current problems in Syria erupted in March 2011) , yet he assumes that all those killed in Syria to date have been killed solely by ammunition allegedly supplied by an exporter who he blithely assumes to be the British Government or an unscrupulous "Brit" (IIRC the man was a Dane or a Dutchman).

Too bloody daft for words.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 05:57 AM

To whom it may concern - no - not you Keith.
Whatever the outcome of America and whoever's planned military intervention - one thing is quite clear as far as Britain is concerned - it has to review its arms trade policy and it's ethics in general trade.
It is obscene that Britain was still selling artillery shells to Gadaffi,leading to the ludicrous situation of Gadaffi troops and Arab Spring opposition killing each other with weapons supplied by Britain, the latter donated to fight the government murderously oppressive behaviour.
Despite describing Gadaffi as a murderous tyrant, his son was being educated for leadership in Britain.
Nearly a month into the Arab Spring demonstrations David Cameron opened an Arms Trade fair aimed at attracting Arab customers - including those likely to be involved in future protests.
No matter what weapons/ammunition were sold to Assad, and there is no question that some where, his track record should have been enough to guarantee that he was never considered a suitable leader to be trusted with such trade.
An amnesty report on human rights in Syria, going back as far an the present dictator's father, made it clear that the people were subjected to false arrest, torture and murder on a regular basis - that report was totally ignored by Britain, who continues to treat Syria as a trading partner.
During the Homs massacres a high ranking Syrian official pointed out how much value Assad placed on British support and friendship.
His suggestion that this should be used as a bargaining ploy to stop the killings was totally ignored.
Assad's gofer - a war criminal, still visits Britain to pursue his business interests and to run the Assad family errands and he still owns six opulent properties in London.
As I said - Britain owes
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 05:51 AM

I am not arguing.
Jim can claim what he likes but not put me up as the source.

I am just saying that I have no evidence of it and do not believe there is any.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 05:34 AM

What's that argument about? Both Keith and Jim are agreed that selling arms to the Syrian government is wrong. Given that agreement, why is it significant to argue about whether the British government has been guilty of that or not? If they have they were wrong, if they haven't that would make a nice change. It's not as if either of them are in control of what the British government has done.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 04:39 AM

There was a certificate to supply a small amount of ammunition.
The military and security services do not buy ammunition in small quantities, and Britain does not make ammunition for Syria's Russian weapons.

No sniper ammunition and no rifles or any other weapons.

This thread is about the real and unimaginable suffering of real people and children.
To you it is just another platform for Jim to attack Britain.

Stick to the issues Jim.
Do not try to make it all about me or Britain yet again.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 03:27 AM

"Do you have any source other than me for them?"
Don't need it Keith - it's registered as "ammunition" in government records - doesn't really matter what it was - it was supplied to a genocidal monster by the British Government, 'nuff for me.
You described sniper bullets as harmless and your friend insisted that it was ok to sell them as, "snipers needed to practice" - more than 'nuff for me.
You went on to suggest that it was ok for the British Government to sell riot control equipment, as they were already doing, to the same genocidal monster with a long-term reputation for lifting opponents off the streets, torturing them and disappearing them - icing on the cake.
As I said, Britain owes the people of Syria a great deal as it has helped (in a small way) to facilitate the slaughter by selling ammunition (no matter what kind) and riot equipment and has supported that monster as a trading partner for decades.
The fact that the British Parliament voted down Cameron and Hague in Parliament last night (an extremely dodgy position for a government to be in) and has decided to leave the job to the Yanks and the French really doesn't put Britain in a good light - either as a debt payer or a humanitarian state.
There, really have overstepped my "troll quota"
Have a good day d'ya hear now.
Jim Carroll
PS I take it from your silence that you don't want the other five excuses for your "sniper bullets" support - plenty of time to sort them out between now and tomorrow - one at a time or singly, however you prefer?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 02:11 AM

Yes Jim, I did say sniper rifles were supplied, but they were not.
For the 50th time, sorry.

Do you have any source other than me for them?
No, because there were no weapons supplied to Syria by Britain.

Do you think I have access to secret intelligence that no search-engine can find?
The name is Keith, not Bond.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 02:05 AM

"It is all bollocks.
You lie."
Here it is from the pair of you, right up to the point where you changed your mind for the first time.
Five more to go - how do you want them - one excuse at a time, or all together.
Troll ration expended.
Jim Carroll

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 11 Feb 12 - 01:09 PM
You have chosen not to live in Britain and curse it with nearly every breath, so we can assume that you retain your citizenship as a cynical convenience.
I do not believe it is the reason you single out Britain for attack here.
For one sniper rifle you could buy 50 or more Kalashnikovs.
With their high rate of fire they are far superior when you just want to kill large numbers of people indiscriminately.
Russia supplies them by the ton.
Unarmed armoured buses, tear gas and water cannon are no good for massacres either.
Still you attack Britain while IGNORING the pitiful subject of this thread!
In just your second post you ascribed a statement to me, in quotes, that I never said and does not represent my opinion.
Straight in with a personal attack backed up with a lie.
You are the enemy of honest, friendly debate.
Now, do you have any comments on the subject of this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 11 Feb 12 - 03:21 PM
SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION FOR SYRIA,
That would be for the sniper rifles Jim.
Britain does not make Kalashnikov rounds.

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 12 Feb 12 - 12:24 PM
To murder civilians, their vast arsenal of Kalshnikovs each do a better job than a sniper rifle.
Sniper rifles are worth more than 50 Kalishnikovs and each round has to be loaded separately by hand.
Armour plated buses, tear gas and water are even less effective.
Britain has no blame for what is going on in Homs, but you only want to talk about Britain.
I will argue the politics of arms sales with you, but not on this thread.
If you only want to talk about Britain not Homs on this thread, you are talking to yourself now, you hate filled obsessive.

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: GUEST,Teribus - PM
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 12:29 AM
The ammunition (unspecified as to type) sold by someone in the UK (Not the UK Government and hence NOT sold by the "British") two years ago will have long gone before the current outbreak of violence in Syria - Guess what "Jim Lad" - Snipers have to practice - they do rather a lot of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 11 Feb 12 - 03:15 PM
Even liberal democracies have to deal with riots.
Non-lethal crowd control techniques are preferrable to live rounds.
If only Syria would restrict its security forces to using tear gas and water.
It would not be such a crime to supply such things, compared to what Russia and China supplies.

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 11 Feb 12 - 03:15 PM
Even liberal democracies have to deal with riots.
Non-lethal crowd control techniques are preferrable to live rounds.
If only Syria would restrict its security forces to using tear gas and water.
It would not be such a crime to supply such things, compared to what Russia and China supplies.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 02:03 AM

I did say it, but by mistake.
Does it surprise you that I am actually fallible.

I am your only source for the sniper rifles claim.
Your only source is saying it is bollocks, so what is your case.

We have been through this many times.
You know it is bollocks, but still try to use it to attack Britain.

This thread is about the real, unimaginable suffering of real people and children.
To you it is just another platform for Jim to attack Britain.

Stick to the issues Jim.
Do not try to make it all about me or about Britain again.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 13 - 06:45 PM

"I never had evidence of sniper rifles to Syria, because there is none."
You and Terminus claimed the recorded sales of "small arms ammunition" was "only sniper rifes" -are you really claiming I am lying - please say I am - again, we were here not so long ago resul;ting in another penalty point in your 'book of lies'.
"the chance of them getting into the hands of such people is very great."
Rather than remaining in the hands of Assad, do you mean?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 13 - 05:00 PM

IT started as protest demonstrations, but it definitely escalated into a civil war. And the side fighting against Assad has a lot of people who would appear to be every bit as bad.

If the chemical weapons can't be got out of the picture the chance of them getting into the hands of such people is very great. If it hasn't in fact already happened. Achieving that seems pretty hopeless, but that should be the central aim for any kind of outside involvement that could be justified.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 13 - 04:11 PM

I'll dig out the whole sorry saga if it is any help - please, please say it is!!!

Yes please!

I never had evidence of sniper rifles to Syria, because there is none.
You thread-drifted a whole raft of countries into the discussion and I momentarily mixed up countries.
Sorry again, but it has all been explained before.

I have no evidence of Britain supplying them, and neither do you.
It is all bollocks.
You lie.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Aug 13 - 03:12 PM

You're a bit too clever for me Suzy, but I have read some stuff by Chomsky and it fits well with my own ideas, as I was a Communist Party member for many years.

Alas I now don't see "politics" solving any problems, just compounding them.

Its been said many times here, how rotten politicians are, but we still keep voting for them.
I agree that we need to get rid of Corporate Capitalism, but its not going to be easy or pleasant
Perhaps humanity has reached its "zenith", or the depths of a politician's depravity?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Aug 13 - 03:09 PM

Is this being reported anywhere besides RTE ?
"Earlier, Tory MP Andrew Bridgen, who led opposition among Conservative backbenchers, said the situation on the ground may be evolving.
Mr Bridgen told RTÉ News that information emerging from the UN team may have helped stall military efforts, saying he suspected the attack may have even been an accident.
The UN team will not be able to confirm this publicly, as they are merely reporting on whether an attack did take place or not."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0829/470916-syria/

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 13 - 02:42 PM

"No-one is advocating intervention in their war."
Simply not true - the present "war" escalated from peaceful protests into a civil war when Assad realised that he could get away with brute force against protesters and his supporters joined him.
"Britain never supplied sniper rifles."
You said they did, - you described them as "a few sniper rifles" and hastily withdrew when you realised that you'd said it at the time when women and children were being massacred by snipers on the streets of Homs.
You changed your statement to there was no record of the sale', 'the deal was made and never fulfilled', 'the government didn't issue export licences', 'they issued licenses but withdrew them'.... and several more versions - I think you finally settled on "I mistakenly thought you were talking about Libya".
I'll dig out the whole sorry saga if it is any help - please, please say it is!!!
Me a "dishonest and prejudiced person" - I'd need a five year course at nightschool to come anywhere near your good self
"No-one is advocating intervention in their war."
Britain has agreed to approach the UN. to mount a military attack on Syria before it invades.
"Britain's Armed Forces are drawing up plans for military action in Syria as the Assad regime says it will use "all available means" to defend itself."
Despite the delay in military action, intervening in Assad's dirty war is exactly wat Cameron, Hague et al are planning - is that not "intervention in their war?"
Why are you lying about the British Government's intentions, and why are you lying by claiming that the conflict wasn't an escalation of protests for democracy in Syria and pretending it was a civil war – do you really support Assad – yu appear to (as long as he doesn't use chemical weapons)
Don't forget to let me know about your "only a few sniper bullets" posting
Have a good night now y'all hear!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 13 - 02:08 PM

Iraq is now embroiled in a religious civil war. Syria will follow suit
Too late Stringy.
There has long been a sectarian civil war in Syria.
You must have been preoccupied with looking for faults with Israel.

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

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Aug 13 - 12:23 PM

I maintain that depleted uranium was used on Iraq and is one of the components of the destruction of the health of the Iraqi people. This has been verified.

Obama may be making a terrible mistake in military intervention in Syria which is a replay
of the invasion of Iraq. The UN inspectors should be allowed to continue their work before any action is taken by the U.S. The action must be diplomatic otherwise a royal mess will be created in Syria just as it has been in Iraq. Iraq is now embroiled in a religious civil war. Syria will follow suit and that country will be equally destroyed.

Invasion of Syria will not make anyone safer and could be the catalyst for further attacks
on the U.S.

Obama is following a Bush approach through lining the pockets of military contractors.

If Obama does this, the U.S. will receive a condemnation from the world community.

Most of the so-called intelligence evidence for the use of chemical weapons is coming from Israel, and the Netanyahu government, not a reliable source of information.

We don't know how and who here. Let the UN inspectors do their work before jumping
off into a face-saving by the Commander-in-Chief.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 13 - 09:20 AM

No country in the world refused to trade with Syria.
It is your prejudice that leads you to single us out.
Britain never supplied sniper rifles.
You know this from the other thread so you make a liar of yourself again.
Britain never supplied Assad any arms.
That would be your old mates the Russians, the Chinese and Iran.

You are a dishonest and prejudiced person Jim.
And shameless about it.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 13 - 08:45 AM

"Is there a single country in the world that refused to trade with Syria?"
Sorry Keith, as I have just said on the 'Irish Famine' thread, I've used up the single daily response I've allocated myself for time-wasting with trolls.
Whatever Britain decides, it needs to be remembered that they share some responsibility for the Assad regime - Vince Cable, Secretary of State for business admitted that Britain regularly adopted a policy of trading with monsters like the Assad family.
They ruled Syria for decades using torture and 'disappearances' on a regular basis and on a grand scale - various British governments totally ignored the Amnesty report outlining the techniques they used.
The British arms industry was issued with export licenses for small arms ammunition (identified by one kind Mudcatter as "sniper bullets") which were almost certainly used against civilians in Homs.
Members of the Assad family are still regular visitors to London for shopping trips.
Assad's gofer (and brother-in-law), who was still a regular visitor to Britain on 'little errands' for the Assads long after the Homs massacres, owns six properties in London which remain unconfiscated, and he remains unarrested despite the fact that, by dint of his job he is an active, practicing war criminal.
That other countries trade with these people is only proof that Britain's morality as far as human rights abuses and war crimes is really no better that the hypocritical stance taken by any other wealthy and powerful state with a total disinterest in seeing off this planet's monsters.
That Britain has finally decided to get up of its bum and do something to stop this particular monster is to be welcomed.
That the delay in doing so has led to the death of many thousand innocents is obvious.
That someone here apparently takes some sort of perverse pleasure in the fact that necessary action has been once again delayed by dithering, is to be expected, (especially as that same individual has formerly suggested that Assad be sold "riot-control gear" in order to gather up opposition to his terrorism into his torture chambers and safely out of the world's view), is sickening.
Now, where did I put the Immodeum?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 13 - 07:56 AM

Jim.
one of Britain's old trading partners and allies

Is there a single country in the world that refused to trade with Syria?
If not, why single out Britain?
What about Assad's arms suppliers for instance?

Britain was never really an ally either.
That would be Russia, China, Iran and Hezbolla.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 29 Aug 13 - 07:05 AM

"I hope he will be proved wrng, if the "islamophobic rants" cease to appear."

Would you please point out any "Islamophobic rant" that I am accused of having made and if you cannot then would you kindly refrain from smearing me with the same shit that your pathetic little buddy uses to defend his lies.


I'm still waiting.....put up or shut up.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 13 - 03:18 AM

"Sorry to disappoint Jim, but no-one is advocating invasion.
Except you, obviously."
It is difficult not to be disgusted by the usual suspect's expression of obvious glee at the fact that no decision has been taken yet as to how they intend to act to defend the people of Syria against one of Britain's old trading partners and allies - another few days of entertainment on the box watching the gas attacks and slaughtering of those nasty "implanted" Arabs I suppose.
Some sort of intervention is inevitable and the longer it is spun out, the more innocent deaths and the bloodier any action will be.
It is more than a little ironic that is is the Tory Government who has finally got off their arses and advocated military action.
It has always been the responsibility of the U.N. to put a halt to the slaughter and allowing the Russian/Chinese vetos to block any action has not only allowed the killing to go on, but it has debased them as an organisation
Jim Carroll

"Britain Will Seek UN Clearance for Military Action Against Syria
By Andrew Sparrow, Guardian UK
28 August 13
David Cameron says UK will put forward resolution at security council 'authorising necessary measures to protect civilians'
Britain will try to get the United Nations security council to authorise military intervention in Syria, David Cameron has said.
He made the announcement on Twitter after the Labour party decided overnight to toughen its stance on the issue, making support for the government in Thursday's Commons vote conditional on Cameron's seeking the involvement of the UN.
But Downing Street sources said approaching the UN had always been part of the government's plan, and denied Labour had bounced Cameron into acting."
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/330-131/19113-britain-will-seek-un-clearance-for-military-action-against-syria

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 29 Aug 13 - 02:55 AM

"Depleted Uranium is a chemical weapon
found in cluster bombs." - Stringsinger

Really??? News to me, which is not surprising as it is complete and utter twaddle (Depleted uranium would be far too heavy to be used in "Cluster munitions" - for use in the anti-tank and runway denial roles "Cluster Bombs" use shaped charges for penetration NOT DU)

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 07:39 PM

Chemical weapons have been used for years. Depleted Uranium is a chemical weapon
found in cluster bombs. White phosphorous used on Palestinians. What do you think
are in those drones?

What was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Makes "chemical weapons" usage moot.

This is a propaganda piece to gin up more war.

War solves no problems but creates far more.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 07:34 PM

The fact that invasion is not being advocated does not mean it won't happen in time. The relevant expression is "mission drift". For that matter the fact that invasion is not being publicly advocated, and is being publicly disavowed does not actually mean that it may not in fact be anticipated. "Truth is the first casualty of war".

Moreover "invasion" as such is just a tactic. Germany never invaded Britain. Nor for that matter did Japan invade America or America invade Japan.

I note that the Daily Mirror reported yesterday that there were SAS forces actually in Syria already. Perhaps it was true, it wouldn't be the least bit surprising.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 07:09 PM

Suzy, Chomsky is right. If the US becomes embroiled in Syria, danger! danger! danger!
There is no winner. It will be worse than the catastrophe in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Syria's defender, Russia has nukes. Pakistan has nukes. Hezbollah will feel justified
in attacking Israel.

World War III anyone?

Cluster bombs have been used by the US. Depleted uranium infects Iraq. Weapons are
being sent to Israel and the Egyptian military. Saudis will make up the difference.

Diplomacy is the only answer. The only ostensible beneficiaries are the military industrial complex. I say ostensible because they will ultimately be the losers as well.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 06:49 PM

Ake, have you ever heard of "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (Hermann & Chomsky, 1988)? There is a method to this hypocrisy...

"Propaganda campaigns can occur only when consistent with the interests of those controlling and managing the filters. For example, these managers all accepted the view that the Polish government's crackdown on the Solidarity union in 1980-81 was extremely newsworthy and deserved severe condemnation; whereas the same interests did not find the Turkish military government's equally brutal crackdown on trade unions in Turkey at about the same time to be newsworthy or reprehensible. In the latter case the U.S. government and business community liked the military government's anticommunist stance and open door economic policy; and the crackdown on Turkish unions had the merit of weakening the Left and keeping wages down. In the Polish case, propaganda points could be scored against a Soviet-supported government, and concern could be expressed for workers whose wages were not paid by Free World employers! The fit of this dichotomization to corporate interests and anticommunist ideology is obvious.

We used the concepts of "worthy" and "unworthy" victims to describe this dichotomization, with a trace of irony, as the differential treatment was clearly related to political and economic advantage rather than anything like actual worth. In fact, the Polish trade unionists quickly ceased to be worthy when communism was overthrown and the workers were struggling against a western-oriented neoliberal regime. The travails of Polish workers now, like those of Turkish workers, do not pass through the propaganda model filters. They are both unworthy victims at this point."

http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/199607--.htm

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 05:55 PM

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

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 04:58 PM

Bobad...
"That's your opinion but I presume that those sending the message believe that it will make them think twice before gassing their people again."

And what "message" is Mr Obama's administration sending to their friends in the Egyptian junta, who murdered hundreds of civilians in full view the worlds TV cameras?.....Oh yes, a parcel of arms and financial aid.

Hypocrisy is hypocrisy!

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 04:51 PM

Hmm...the last war was proposed by a "Labour" government.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 04:12 PM

Cameron is talking in terms of a very limited operation, with no question of trying for regime change. Not that it makes any difference what he wants. The British and other little countries are just window dressing.

In practice the odds must be that things are going to be much much bigger before it's over, and spread much wider. That's what I meant by August 1914.

It appears the Labour Party has said they won't support anythng until the inspectors havve done their work and reported to the UN. Since it seems unlikely that Washington will wait for that there could be a problem for them in finding a way to go back on that. The Labour Party has always ended up backing any war that's proposed by a British government.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 04:01 PM

No comment at all about the Palestinians that would be killed by any use by Syria or Iran of the WMD they have threatened Israel with.


Must be nice to expect to be killed off by your "friends"

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 04:01 PM

Tough titty -
look for tonight's news yourself - if you don't find it too taxing
By the way - never take a job a a weather forecaster
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 03:52 PM

Link does not work jim.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 03:10 PM

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/syria-crisis-mps-to-vote-on-military-action-as-us-and-britain-plan-attack-on-assads-regime-

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 02:00 PM

"....even though it will make things worse"..."

That's your opinion but I presume that those sending the message believe that it will make them think twice before gassing their people again.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 01:38 PM

"The weapons inspectors have resumed their work."
Excellent - hpee they get finished before the Brits and US invade, as they seem to have decided (at long last) to do
Jim Carroll

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

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 01:03 PM

Basically then it comes down to "We have to do something, even though it will make things worse"...

That is indeed crazy. It's probably how our leaders are thinking.

August 1914...

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 12:04 PM

"..... genuine reason to believe that it would make things better"

I don't think there is anything to be done to make things better in the short term. The best that can be hoped for at this stage is to send a message that the world will not sit idly by while you kill your people with chemical weapons. Hopefully this may help in the long term.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 11:50 AM

" was the attack intentionally ordered by Assad's government or was it work of a rogue Syrian officer?"

That opens the possibility of yet another scenario. If there was "a rogue Syrian officer " responsible that could mean one acting with the intention of provokng external intervention in order to undermine the regime.

The thing is, we just don't know anything except that an awful lot of people have ben horribly killed.

Before any kind of action could possibly be right there would have to be genuine reason to believe that it would make things better. At this time there is nothing even aproaching that.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 11:19 AM

Surely we are not going to allow ourselves to be fooled again, as we were in the Iraq conflict.

Its beginning to look as if the destabilisation of the Middle East is the objective of the Western nations.
We used the pretext of "democracy" to stir up people who have no way of implementing that ideology.
Muslim fundamentalism is still strong and they have no wish to see what we call democracy in their country.....conclusion a bloodbath and countries turned into lawless wastelands.