Jump to content

Syria


Anorthernsoul
 Share

Recommended Posts

Someone said last week that the Sunni v Shia conflcit is afoot all across the muslim world. And with Russia backing Assad to the hilt it makes things very, very difficult for the US et al to intervene. Sad to say, best let them get on with killing each other. Tragic for the innocents though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why?..we did nowt when Saddam did Falluja in 87

 

when arguably we should have. but we were too busy selling him weapons.

 

i'd like to think the major powers of the world have a moral compass and intervene in times of humanitarian crises and not just to further their self interest. The last iraq war is just one example of how that's rarely the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone tell me why it's worse being killed by a chemical weapon than it is from a bomb or machete?

.

 

Long drawn out painful burning drowning on dry land. It all depends on the chemicals like but you can do something about a machete and it's not as indiscriminate also even bombs have a blast radius much smaller than the geographical spread of nerve agent or blister agent or blood agents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something stinks about this one. Read an article yesterday (authentic in its entirety that I was alerted to by a mainstream radio presenter yesterday) from the Daily Mail. It has been censored by many sites now. I could only get this which only shows the article's headline on this dodgy site;

 

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=77999

 

A lot of things don't make sense;

 

Why would Assad allow weapons inspectors in if he instigated this chemical attack himself. I mean if I were him and I did something as henious as that I sure wouldn't allow a third party to come in to verify it. That would just about be a sign off on my death warrant considering Obama's rhetoric about the use of chemical weapons a few months ago.

What will a surgical strike acheive? Unless it's not a strike at possible sites of these chemical weapons stockpiles but rather a strike at the military infrastructure in order to allow these rebels to over run govt controlled territory and eventual overthrow of Assad's regime.

Don't Islamic Fundamentalists make up a large portion of these rebels. So if Assad's regime topples won't they gain control? They'd be worse than Assad's regime.

Russia claims that this chemical weapons attack was a a possible act of outside provacation. They alledge that reports of this attack came hours before the attack actually occured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should confiscate Assad and his family's assets in London - that would scare the fucker into giving up tomorrow - they should have done the same for Gadaffi and Mubarak as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

 

Long drawn out painful burning drowning on dry land. It all depends on the chemicals like but you can do something about a machete and it's not as indiscriminate also even bombs have a blast radius much smaller than the geographical spread of nerve agent or blister agent or blood agents.

This question was asked by Nicky Campbell today to two politicians, one being David blunkett. He at least admitted the reasons were largely psychological, emotional, and historical. The indiscriminate reason just doesn't make sense to me, as if you get discriminate bombs. So, as far as can tell, this impending war is based on an irrational premise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This question was asked by Nicky Campbell today to two politicians, one being David blunkett. He at least admitted the reasons were largely psychological, emotional, and historical. The indiscriminate reason just doesn't make sense to me, as if you get discriminate bombs. So, as far as can tell, this impending war is based on an irrational premise.

 

Is it because gas hasnt been used on the battlefield in nearly 100 years, and when it has been used in that time, its been purely to target innocent civillians?...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Is it because gas hasnt been used on the battlefield in nearly 100 years, and when it has been used in that time, its been purely to target innocent civillians?...

Probably, but is this a relevant difference. Civilians are massacred with other weapons more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.