It also can see your point. I suppose we may never know. Too many factions with just as many agendas on both sides of the conflict vying for an edge. As usual it's the innocent that suffer. The world is a sick place.
Find it strange that Assad would decide to use chemical weapons at this point in time. As Piggy says, his forces had the upper hand and the eyes of the world are on Syria so what could he have possibly hoped to achieve? Some theories on the 'net disturbingly point towards something bigger than Syria itself and that it's just the starting point to establishing a New World Order. As a rational human being I am sceptical of some of the stuff I read on the www. but even if a smidge of what some of the theorists are putting out there comes to pass then we could be entering into one helluva shitstorm which will see no winners.
Find it strange that Assad would decide to use chemical weapons at this point in time. As Piggy says, his forces had the upper hand and the eyes of the world are on Syria so what could he have possibly hoped to achieve? Some theories on the 'net disturbingly point towards something bigger than Syria itself and that it's just the starting point to establishing a New World Order. As a rational human being I am sceptical of some of the stuff I read on the www. but even if a smidge of what some of the theorists are putting out there comes to pass then we could be entering into one helluva shitstorm which will see no winners.
Attack Syria without question? So, could such an attack avoid civilian casualties? Do you think, oh well there will be some innocents killed, but that's collateral damage? The vile stuff was used. There is probably only a fag paper of moral difference between the men on one side with their weapons, and the men on the other side with their weapons. Either side would use whatever weapons available. If we could uninvent the means of destruction we might get somewhere. Or if the men involved could understand how contaminated they are inside, and had some kind of desire to change, we might be able to improve things longer term.
Just googled some of this "new world order" stuff. It's so far off this planet it's unreal. Bunch of loonies seeing American, Zionist and Global elite in every shadow.
Attack Syria without question? So, could such an attack avoid civilian casualties? Do you think, oh well there will be some innocents killed, but that's collateral damage? The vile stuff was used. There is probably only a fag paper of moral difference between the men on one side with their weapons, and the men on the other side with their weapons. Either side would use whatever weapons available. If we could uninvent the means of destruction we might get somewhere. Or if the men involved could understand how contaminated they are inside, and had some kind of desire to change, we might be able to improve things longer term.
Just googled some of this "new world order" stuff. It's so far off this planet it's unreal. Bunch of loonies seeing American, Zionist and Global elite in every shadow.
Not sure how to put up links but on YouTube just search for 'Syria' and look for posts from AMTV (Alternative Media TV). There is certainly some thought provoking ideas @ShootersHillGuru.
Find it strange that Assad would decide to use chemical weapons at this point in time. As Piggy says, his forces had the upper hand and the eyes of the world are on Syria so what could he have possibly hoped to achieve? Some theories on the 'net disturbingly point towards something bigger than Syria itself and that it's just the starting point to establishing a New World Order. As a rational human being I am sceptical of some of the stuff I read on the www. but even if a smidge of what some of the theorists are putting out there comes to pass then we could be entering into one helluva shitstorm which will see no winners.
Not sure how to put up links but on YouTube just search for 'Syria' and look for posts from AMTV (Alternative Media TV). There is certainly some thought provoking ideas @ShootersHillGuru.
Riiiiight. Because THAT guy is clearly sane...
These nutjobs are so obviously snooker loopy that anyone with even a modicum of intelligence can drive a truck through their 'theories'. Unfortunately, people are willing to give their views credence because the Internet somehow gives them legitimacy.
Attack Syria without question? So, could such an attack avoid civilian casualties? Do you think, oh well there will be some innocents killed, but that's collateral damage? The vile stuff was used. There is probably only a fag paper of moral difference between the men on one side with their weapons, and the men on the other side with their weapons. Either side would use whatever weapons available. If we could uninvent the means of destruction we might get somewhere. Or if the men involved could understand how contaminated they are inside, and had some kind of desire to change, we might be able to improve things longer term.
Pardon, that didn't make any sense to me.
It was your 'without question' phrase I was responding to, with a couple of questions.
Didn't say I bought into the theories of AMTV viewpoint Leroy, just that there are people floating ideas.
Whatever the truth, Syria has the potential to kickstart some world changing events on a hugely negative scale.
That's the problem though. People have been 'floating ideas' about this kind of shit for a long time now. It's because of this that millions of people think we never went to the moon, or that the 9/11 atrocities were committed by or with the knowledge of the US government, or that we're all about to be destroyed by a solar flare.
It's dangerous to have such bollocks out there simply because there are millions of people credulous and desperate enough to believe in it.
Lunatics like the bloke on that YouTube channel I found when Googling the name above should be starved of the oxygen of publicity - that's all they crave, and ignoring them completely is the best way of dealing with them.
Some may argue though that without people questioning the 'party line' that those at the top want us to believe then 'those at the top' will have 'us' - every ordinary citizen of the world - exactly where they want 'us'.
Didn't say I bought into the theories of AMTV viewpoint Leroy, just that there are people floating ideas.
Whatever the truth, Syria has the potential to kickstart some world changing events on a hugely negative scale.
That's the problem though. People have been 'floating ideas' about this kind of shit for a long time now. It's because of this that millions of people think we never went to the moon, or that the 9/11 atrocities were committed by or with the knowledge of the US government, or that we're all about to be destroyed by a solar flare.
It's dangerous to have such bollocks out there simply because there are millions of people credulous and desperate enough to believe in it.
Lunatics like the bloke on that YouTube channel I found when Googling the name above should be starved of the oxygen of publicity - that's all they crave, and ignoring them completely is the best way of dealing with them.
I agree with the conspiracy theory lovers, but I feel this one is a little different.
assads forces getting the upper hand reclaiming cities and suddenly their back in the news for war crimes, strange last month when they were being pushed back and losing ground everything was dandy. We will be arming the terrorists in a week or so on the say so of that little camp freak hague
One of the problems is the west giving the rebels hope they will intervene and help them. If it doesn't ultimately do this the politicians will have made things worse. If they do and Syria get a fundamentalist Islamic government, they will have made things worse. Idiots like Hague and Blair who can't look ahead to the end game have blood on their hands.
I think proof does have to be obtained - there is a motive for both sides using chemical weapons. Obama said for all to hear that their use would be the red line - huge mistake. He should have said it privately to Assad! I don't think Assad wants the west to intervene - the rebels certainly do - what was militarily achieved by their use? There is sufficient confusion for clarity to be needed and these questions to be asked!
Deals within deals. The USA will be backing and supporting whichever side they think will best serve their foreign policy interests. That support might change and change again as different situations evolve. The vacuum filled by Assads regime falling will be filled by a new regime that despite its whatever name will continue to play the game, continue to oppress its citizens and continue to buy arms from all of the major weapons manufacturing countries who will fall over backwards to sell them. The world is a sick place.
Anyone else find it a little strange that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons? what I mean is whilst the whole world is watching them it begs the question as to why?
Lets first of all see what the UNI finds then asses, although time is now not on their side and If they do find out that they have used Sarin, and that's IF, then we should attack Syria without question.
If Iran and Russia want to defend Syria after this then that's up to them.
Hague said today even if no evidence found its because the Syrian govt would have destroyed it. They seem intent on attacking with or without proof even with such extremist opposition forces. It's very strange. There's no election coming up for a bit of a poll boost or any rational explanation I can see in attacking without proof. It seems very odd why some (the UK and France mainly and some elements in the USA) are so strident and eagar to attack when the results could be so bad. Some outlandish commentators have suggested the economy may be heading for big trouble (interest rate rises and money printing ending in the states) and a foreign foray is always a nice distraction and allows those schemes to keep going.
Anyone else find it a little strange that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons? what I mean is whilst the whole world is watching them it begs the question as to why?
Lets first of all see what the UNI finds then asses, although time is now not on their side and If they do find out that they have used Sarin, and that's IF, then we should attack Syria without question.
If Iran and Russia want to defend Syria after this then that's up to them.
Hague said today even if no evidence found its because the Syrian govt would have destroyed it. They seem intent on attacking with or without proof even with such extremist opposition forces. It's very strange. There's no election coming up for a bit of a poll boost or any rational explanation I can see in attacking without proof. It seems very odd why some (the UK and France mainly and some elements in the USA) are so strident and eagar to attack when the results could be so bad. Some outlandish commentators have suggested the economy may be heading for big trouble (interest rate rises and money printing ending in the states) and a foreign foray is always a nice distraction and allows those schemes to keep going.
The proof that an attack has occurred is basically proven with the medical records (from an independent hospital) + the videos and accounts which would've been very difficult to stage.
The only issue now is which side caused the attack, and i'm not really sure the rebels would gas their own supporters in Damascus during the heaviest assaults of Assad's forces. Not sure what proof people are wanting, an e-mail from Assad to the military telling them to chemically attack Damascus isn't going to turn up...
Anyone else find it a little strange that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons? what I mean is whilst the whole world is watching them it begs the question as to why?
Lets first of all see what the UNI finds then asses, although time is now not on their side and If they do find out that they have used Sarin, and that's IF, then we should attack Syria without question.
If Iran and Russia want to defend Syria after this then that's up to them.
Hague said today even if no evidence found its because the Syrian govt would have destroyed it. They seem intent on attacking with or without proof even with such extremist opposition forces. It's very strange. There's no election coming up for a bit of a poll boost or any rational explanation I can see in attacking without proof. It seems very odd why some (the UK and France mainly and some elements in the USA) are so strident and eagar to attack when the results could be so bad. Some outlandish commentators have suggested the economy may be heading for big trouble (interest rate rises and money printing ending in the states) and a foreign foray is always a nice distraction and allows those schemes to keep going.
The proof that an attack has occurred is basically proven with the medical records (from an independent hospital) + the videos and accounts which would've been very difficult to stage.
The only issue now is which side caused the attack, and i'm not really sure the rebels would gas their own supporters in Damascus during the heaviest assaults of Assad's forces. Not sure what proof people are wanting, an e-mail from Assad to the military telling them to chemically attack Damascus isn't going to turn up...
This dispute, like all all the uprisings across the Arab world since the start of the "Arab spring", does not simply consist of a government fighting rebel forces trying to overthrow it. In every case the Islamic jihardists, crazy nutters who really believe that anything is permissible in their efforts to impose their version of Islam in as many countries as possible, (we even have them in this country; they are the ones who expressed the view that the murder of Lee Rigby was justified), are playing a major part. It would not surprise me at all if it turns out if it was the Islamic jihardists nut jobs who perpetrated this atrocity.
Let's just hope neocons don't get anywhere near office, or have leverage in US government. We don't need anymore zealot half-wits like Wolfowitz, Bremner, Rumsfield and Cheney. Why can't we set up a liberal free-market church in Damascus, and send them all there to fight the good fight? Sending Tony Blair into his personal God created Utopia, would at least make him meet the reality of his actions.
As for finding out who did it, Fisk writes a good piece in the Independent of the massacres across the fatal Arab Summer:
The relatively simple killing in 1996 of seven Cistercian monks is still massively disputed. Delivery of WWII nerve gas, unless you find a nutty Aum Shinrikyo monk on the run will be argued over for years.
Comments
So, could such an attack avoid civilian casualties?
Do you think, oh well there will be some innocents killed, but that's collateral damage?
The vile stuff was used. There is probably only a fag paper of moral difference between the men on one side with their weapons, and the men on the other side with their weapons. Either side would use whatever weapons available. If we could uninvent the means of destruction we might get somewhere.
Or if the men involved could understand how contaminated they are inside, and had some kind of desire to change, we might be able to improve things longer term.
UN inspectors shot at by snipers.
These nutjobs are so obviously snooker loopy that anyone with even a modicum of intelligence can drive a truck through their 'theories'. Unfortunately, people are willing to give their views credence because the Internet somehow gives them legitimacy.
Whatever the truth, Syria has the potential to kickstart some world changing events on a hugely negative scale.
It's dangerous to have such bollocks out there simply because there are millions of people credulous and desperate enough to believe in it.
Lunatics like the bloke on that YouTube channel I found when Googling the name above should be starved of the oxygen of publicity - that's all they crave, and ignoring them completely is the best way of dealing with them.
I think proof does have to be obtained - there is a motive for both sides using chemical weapons. Obama said for all to hear that their use would be the red line - huge mistake. He should have said it privately to Assad! I don't think Assad wants the west to intervene - the rebels certainly do - what was militarily achieved by their use? There is sufficient confusion for clarity to be needed and these questions to be asked!
The only issue now is which side caused the attack, and i'm not really sure the rebels would gas their own supporters in Damascus during the heaviest assaults of Assad's forces. Not sure what proof people are wanting, an e-mail from Assad to the military telling them to chemically attack Damascus isn't going to turn up...
As for finding out who did it, Fisk writes a good piece in the Independent of the massacres across the fatal Arab Summer:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/fisk/death-is-noweveryday-among-arabs--butculprits-and-facts-are-rare-8784453.html
The relatively simple killing in 1996 of seven Cistercian monks is still massively disputed. Delivery of WWII nerve gas, unless you find a nutty Aum Shinrikyo monk on the run will be argued over for years.