Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Airstrikes against Syria

1246710

Comments

  • Excuse my ignorance, but wont bombing a chemical weapons factory.... release chemical weapons ?
  • Shame it wasn't more missile strikes, Assad is an animal.
  • edited April 2018
    ads said:

    shine166 said:

    So Syria uses chemicals against its own people and we bomb them... Russia uses chemicals on British soil and its forgotten in a week

    No oil in Salisbury
    Well, there's both the Goodworth and the Stockbridge oilfields just to the east of Salisbury, so bang goes that theory.
  • What a sorry mess. The world is a truly fucked up place with nut jobs galore in power everywhere you care to look. Pretty much every country has a view that differs from their neighbour. Agendas being pursued and posturing megalomaniacs prepared to launch weapons guaranteed to kill innocents along with the bad guys but it’s all right because we know what’s right. Killed and maimed women and children are shrugged off as unfortunate collateral damage with the token wringing of hands.

    Sometimes it’s amazing what good people are capable of but mostly I despair of the human race. Our technological advancements have outstripped our sense and compassion. It’s surely only a matter of time before we do the unthinkable and end everything.
  • Little over 2 years ago we launched airstrikes to support the Assad regime. Now we launch them against him. What is our aim? To overthrow him or a slap on the wrist? Are we going to bomb Turkey who are targeting our Kurdish allies and killing innocent civilians and children? Let's publically form a policy on Syria as a whole and have parliament support it. Not one-off interference in a country we have no ties to, and no business getting involved.

    Which time warp are you living in?
  • Sponsored links:


  • cafcfan said:

    ads said:

    shine166 said:

    So Syria uses chemicals against its own people and we bomb them... Russia uses chemicals on British soil and its forgotten in a week

    No oil in Salisbury
    Well, there's both the Goodworth and the Stockbridge oilfields just to the east of Salisbury, so bang goes that theory.
    They're petrol stations
  • Think it about time this got another airing -
    image

    He's an opposition politician. What else can he do? He has no power yet.
  • the whole thing seems a bit of a stunt (for lack of a better word) to me.
    just heard on the news that Russia knew about the strikes many hours if not days before. so they make sure they are out the way so no Russians get hurt.(maybe a quick whisper to their mate Assad to move anything valuable away from those targets and to get ready for an attack stopping what they can and claim over 70 of our 110 missiles were intercepted) We look like we are doing the right thing by making a stance against chemical warfare. the Russians are not affected so no need for them to over react and Assads regime can say they did alright against the air attacks from major military powers. no one loses face as it were.
    not suggesting all of this is true but it seems its extremely possible this is how things have played out from the bits I have read.

    Ignores the fact zero missiles were intercepted....
  • cafcfan said:

    ads said:

    shine166 said:

    So Syria uses chemicals against its own people and we bomb them... Russia uses chemicals on British soil and its forgotten in a week

    No oil in Salisbury
    Well, there's both the Goodworth and the Stockbridge oilfields just to the east of Salisbury, so bang goes that theory.
    Wallop
  • So to put this all into perspective, a sovereign nation has been attacked.

    The PM has launched weapons without putting it past parliament but in order to make Brexit happen after a referendum it has to be voted on in parliament....

    Destabilising a region by regime change will create a power vacuum and breed more extremism. Afghanistan and Iraq for reference.

    Everyone has spoken of "proof" yet no one has shown any, so should we bomb other countries based on heresay?

    As I started with, this is a sovereign nation who did not attack another country. No one on the ground has yet been able to provide any proof it was Assad that used chemical weapons. The US has to stop being the world police, but the military industrial complex runs it.

    Hopefully this doesn't escalate.
  • So to put this all into perspective, a sovereign nation has been attacked.

    The PM has launched weapons without putting it past parliament but in order to make Brexit happen after a referendum it has to be voted on in parliament....

    Destabilising a region by regime change will create a power vacuum and breed more extremism. Afghanistan and Iraq for reference.

    Everyone has spoken of "proof" yet no one has shown any, so should we bomb other countries based on heresay?

    As I started with, this is a sovereign nation who did not attack another country. No one on the ground has yet been able to provide any proof it was Assad that used chemical weapons. The US has to stop being the world police, but the military industrial complex runs it.

    Hopefully this doesn't escalate.

    Who exactly do YOU think used those chemical weapons?

  • Think it about time this got another airing -
    image

    Those who don't follow history are doomed to repeat it.

    Remind me how the Cuban missile crisis was resolved?

    Personally I think the mean below is more appropriate.

    image
  • Little over 2 years ago we launched airstrikes to support the Assad regime. Now we launch them against him. What is our aim? To overthrow him or a slap on the wrist? Are we going to bomb Turkey who are targeting our Kurdish allies and killing innocent civilians and children? Let's publically form a policy on Syria as a whole and have parliament support it. Not one-off interference in a country we have no ties to, and no business getting involved.

    Which time warp are you living in?
    What? And by only changing one letter I can spell twat.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Little over 2 years ago we launched airstrikes to support the Assad regime. Now we launch them against him. What is our aim? To overthrow him or a slap on the wrist? Are we going to bomb Turkey who are targeting our Kurdish allies and killing innocent civilians and children? Let's publically form a policy on Syria as a whole and have parliament support it. Not one-off interference in a country we have no ties to, and no business getting involved.

    Which time warp are you living in?
    What? And by only changing one letter I can spell twat.
    i can change another and spell twit - arent I clever. The simple fact is that we have not sent air strikes in support of the Assad regime, You are wrong, We have sent air strikes into Iran and Syria to attack ISIL but never in support of Assad.
  • So to put this all into perspective, a sovereign nation has been attacked.

    The PM has launched weapons without putting it past parliament but in order to make Brexit happen after a referendum it has to be voted on in parliament....

    Destabilising a region by regime change will create a power vacuum and breed more extremism. Afghanistan and Iraq for reference.

    Everyone has spoken of "proof" yet no one has shown any, so should we bomb other countries based on heresay?

    As I started with, this is a sovereign nation who did not attack another country. No one on the ground has yet been able to provide any proof it was Assad that used chemical weapons. The US has to stop being the world police, but the military industrial complex runs it.

    Hopefully this doesn't escalate.

    Who exactly do YOU think used those chemical weapons?

    Remind me how we got on in Libya and Iraq and how good our intelligence was? We had a fantastic strategy didn't we?

    We destabilized the region and provided support to the Saudi regime who helped back ISIS and carry out atrocities in the Yemen.

    The actions of the US and the UK have been farcical yet for some reason some are still arguing that we have a strategy within the region.

    If making the same mistakes over and over again is a strategy then we've mastered it. I doubt Trump even knows where Syria is and his only concern seems to be his battle of egos with Putin.

    If we're going to intervene in Syria then what about all the other countries where transgressions are routinely ignored? Do we only intervene if the Russians are involved.

    Any sensible debate about the region would have to recognise our failings - we need to be a lot more intelligent in our approach going forward otherwise we are going to continue making things worse.

    If you're going to intervene you need to plan, have a strategy and to not blindly ignore the numerous lessons for history.

    Do Trump and May want to repeat the failings of Blair and Bush?
    hmm.. your post seems to have too much logic and common sense in, dont we usually just blow places to rubble with no evidence and then turn the scumbags away when they have the cheek to want to live somewhere better ?
  • Little over 2 years ago we launched airstrikes to support the Assad regime. Now we launch them against him. What is our aim? To overthrow him or a slap on the wrist? Are we going to bomb Turkey who are targeting our Kurdish allies and killing innocent civilians and children? Let's publically form a policy on Syria as a whole and have parliament support it. Not one-off interference in a country we have no ties to, and no business getting involved.

    Which time warp are you living in?
    What? And by only changing one letter I can spell twat.
    i can change another and spell twit - arent I clever. The simple fact is that we have not sent air strikes in support of the Assad regime, You are wrong, We have sent air strikes into Iran and Syria to attack ISIL but never in support of Assad.
    F*ck me - we've bombed Iran as well. That's going to throw up a heap of shit I can tell you.

    Or did you mean Iraq??
  • Think it about time this got another airing -
    image

    Those who don't follow history are doomed to repeat it.

    Remind me how the Cuban missile crisis was resolved?

    Personally I think the mean below is more appropriate.

    image
    The article in the link below suggests a possible plausible reason why Assad might use chemical weapons - despite apparently 'winning' the war:

    "One crucial and largely overlooked explanation is the pressure he has faced from the Alawites, members of the minority Shiite-linked sect to which the Assads belong. Many Alawites believe Douma’s main insurgent group Jaysh al-Islam, or the Army of Islam, has been holding up to 7,500 Alawite prisoners in and around the city—including army generals, soldiers, and civilians—kidnapped or taken captive by rebels over the years to try to extract concessions from the regime. Though the Alawites represent a small proportion of the country overall, they hold key regime positions, dominate the police, and supply the main fighting forces who have been defending the regime since 2011. Many of their families are missing loved ones whom Assad can’t seem to get free, even as he tells them he wants still more of their sons to fight.

    Assad’s ability to get them back is vital to preserving his legitimacy in the eyes of this important constituency, a fact that Iran and Russia, his patrons, also recognize. “We won’t give up on any missing or kidnapped person and we are going to do whatever it takes to free him if he’s still alive,” Assad said during a meeting with Alawite families on Tuesday. For Assad, demonstrating solidarity with his own community may be a bigger concern than any fallout from his use of chemical weapons. Given the West’s uneven track record in responding to previous such attacks, his allies’ determination to protect him, and his own willingness to justify any atrocity or lie about it with impunity, there’s a brutal logic to his thinking—his regime seems built to last, especially as confusion grows about what if anything the American response will be. Yet, in the lead-up to the suspected Douma chemical-weapons attack, it became clear that Assad needed to demonstrate to his own war-weary community how far he was willing to go to free their prisoners. This is a dictator who instinctively understands how quickly things could collapse if the Alawites turn on him".

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/assad-alawite-syria/557810/
  • shine166 said:

    shine166 said:

    I guess all the anti Trump/May brigade would rather do it diplomatically via the UN ?
    Oh, we tried that but the Russians veto everything.
    Or draw a red line which must not be crossed.
    Oh, Obama already did that but didn’t act when it was crossed, then let the Russians “dispose” of Assad’s chemical weapons.

    Really stupid comment - this isn't about being anti Trump or May it's about having a coherent foreign policy. Only a total f***ing buffoon would say this has been thought through - it's a knee jerk publicity seeking stunt with nothing to follow through.

    Western foreign policy has been a total disaster in the Middle East - we've helped create half the problems and we've learnt nothing.

    Air strikes in themselves are not a strategy - any brief study of history will demonstrate that. You can't carve up a region with ridiculous boundaries, supply it with arms, randomly support brutal dictators and then feign surprise when it goes belly up.

    How many failures do we need in the Middle East before we take stock of history?

    It ain’t stupid and I’m not a buffoon. There are those on here and other social media forums that do condemn and oppose everything Trump and May do.
    Only a total f***ing buffoon would disagree with that.

    Ah that moron that does his politics by tweet and the twot that is so shit at having an opinion shes barely allowed to talk publically ?

    only a buffoon would blindly follow there outlook on the world
    And just to confirm, I don’t blindly follow any politician. My initial comments were aimed at those that blindly oppose certain politicians whilst blindly following others.

    Just to confirm, I dont really give 2 shits so stop being so precious
    Nice piece of work aren’t you.
  • So to put this all into perspective, a sovereign nation has been attacked.

    The PM has launched weapons without putting it past parliament but in order to make Brexit happen after a referendum it has to be voted on in parliament....

    Destabilising a region by regime change will create a power vacuum and breed more extremism. Afghanistan and Iraq for reference.

    Everyone has spoken of "proof" yet no one has shown any, so should we bomb other countries based on heresay?

    As I started with, this is a sovereign nation who did not attack another country. No one on the ground has yet been able to provide any proof it was Assad that used chemical weapons. The US has to stop being the world police, but the military industrial complex runs it.

    Hopefully this doesn't escalate.

    Who exactly do YOU think used those chemical weapons?

    To be honest, im not quite sure.

    The use of chemical weapons hasnt been determined by an independent body on the ground. There are 3rd party reports of it but not verified independently.

    Also, the last time the US and UK went looking for weapons of mass destruction or chemical weapons it turned out there were none. How great was that intelligence? This from the onset appears to be exactly the same.

    Mrs May said: "Open source accounts allege that a barrel bomb was used to deliver the chemicals. Multiple open source reports claim that a Regime helicopter was observed above the city of Douma on the evening of 7th April.

    "The Opposition does not operate helicopters or use barrel bombs. And reliable intelligence indicates that Syrian military officials co-ordinated what appears to be the use of chlorine in Douma on 7th April."

    The Prime Minister also indicated there was other intelligence based evidence which she was unable to share with the public, saying: "I cannot tell you everything.”

    Again, this is a sovereign nation, i dont support chemical weapons use period, but there is a bigger picture here that people are not looking at. Why doesnt the US get involved in Yemen, Darfur, Cambodia... Those are all genocides? Why not promote regime change there, boots on the ground there?
  • So to put this all into perspective, a sovereign nation has been attacked.

    The PM has launched weapons without putting it past parliament but in order to make Brexit happen after a referendum it has to be voted on in parliament....

    Destabilising a region by regime change will create a power vacuum and breed more extremism. Afghanistan and Iraq for reference.

    Everyone has spoken of "proof" yet no one has shown any, so should we bomb other countries based on heresay?

    As I started with, this is a sovereign nation who did not attack another country. No one on the ground has yet been able to provide any proof it was Assad that used chemical weapons. The US has to stop being the world police, but the military industrial complex runs it.

    Hopefully this doesn't escalate.

    Who exactly do YOU think used those chemical weapons?

    To be honest, im not quite sure.

    The use of chemical weapons hasnt been determined by an independent body on the ground. There are 3rd party reports of it but not verified independently.

    Also, the last time the US and UK went looking for weapons of mass destruction or chemical weapons it turned out there were none. How great was that intelligence? This from the onset appears to be exactly the same.

    Mrs May said: "Open source accounts allege that a barrel bomb was used to deliver the chemicals. Multiple open source reports claim that a Regime helicopter was observed above the city of Douma on the evening of 7th April.

    "The Opposition does not operate helicopters or use barrel bombs. And reliable intelligence indicates that Syrian military officials co-ordinated what appears to be the use of chlorine in Douma on 7th April."

    The Prime Minister also indicated there was other intelligence based evidence which she was unable to share with the public, saying: "I cannot tell you everything.”

    Again, this is a sovereign nation, i dont support chemical weapons use period, but there is a bigger picture here that people are not looking at. Why doesnt the US get involved in Yemen, Darfur, Cambodia... Those are all genocides? Why not promote regime change there, boots on the ground there?

    You have seen the footage from last Saturday in Douma where women and children were being doused in water to help alleviate the effects of “something “ that they had been exposed to ?

    Now you either look at the facts as we have them and say whom is most likely to have and used chemical weapons against these innocents given that access to chemical weapons is fairly limited to one of the main players. Either Assad, the Russians or the West. Unlikely that Isis have them otherwise they would have undoubtedly used them before.

    I’m ruling out the use by the West. It’s insane to think otherwise. That leaves Assad or Putin.

    In either scenario it’s unacceptable and something for us to be worried about. I am also confident that as much as I am not at all sure that these strikes are of real value there is not any suggestion of a regime change. The strikes were to minimise the possibility of Assad using chemical weapons against his own people again.

    As for the other regions you mention. That is a completely different situation. No reports of chemical weapons being used there and this is what this particular mess is all about.

  • She didn’t need to ask permission she done the right thing and I am glad she did

    Corbyn wouldn’t do anything if you were caught with your fingers in his old lady the man is a coward

    If we would have told comerade corbyn what was happening he would have rang putin on the red phone

    Dianne Abbott?

    I reckon he just lives in a different world to all the rest of the world. He is well meaning but ineffectual. I don’t think he even aspires to be a world leader. Putin is ripping every world leader a new one and is bizarrely only currently combated by a similarly sectionable but less well trained loon in the US.

    Sorry Donald but Putin will kick your ass any second of every day of the week and President Xi’s 200 year plan team is also going to be kicking your ass. Aggressive financial and probably military steps are needed, get yourself a plan.

    Hopefully we can shut large chunks of the Russian oligarchy down by freezing their bank accounts and denying them access to virtually any country. Doesn’t seem super likely to me that we can do this but would certainly bite harder in Syria than a few (just over 100) expensive missiles aimed at god knows what.

  • I don't think anyone disagrees with wanting to stop chemical weapons being used, it's more concern that we've fallen into the trap of "that's terrible, something must be done - this is something, therefore we must do it" again.
  • Can we not just talk about it?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!