Latest attack in Syria

[Jammybean]

Just watching BBC news, they were frantically trying to save a toddler who was convulsing . I feel physically sick.

Srebrenica was one that had me banging the table demanding action against the Serbs. But the UN were on the ground there and could see what was happening - which made it even more unforgiveable that the atrocity was permitted to proceed.

This one just doesn't have me banging the table.

@Holidaybug. I used to think the intelligence service would know too. but after Iraq dossier, they proved they can't be trusted without question.

The fact remains not if we should intervene but HOW? What's the end game? No-one knows.

Whoever said that the UN vote will be blocked by China/Russia. Well isn't that kind of the point? We'd be mad if we vetoed a vote and they ignored us wouldn't we?

Christ, I sound like a bleeding heart lefty peacenik. I'm not.

I just like to know we have solid evidence, a credible plan and a defined end goal before sending our armed forces into harms way and killing people who may well be innocent.

Right now we don't have even one of those three things. So how can we support 'intervention'

Wet August - you cannot compare the crimes if the regime with the actions of one soldier who was hugely, hugely condemned www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/he-will-be-punished-severely-free-syrian-army-vows-to-hunt-down-rebel-commander-abu-sakkar-filmed-eating-government-soldiers-heart-in-gruesome-propaganda-video-8615112.html

Do you condemn the entire US army because if the actions of Robert Bales?

The "both sides are equally bad" rhetoric is wrong headed and not supported by statistics or by most Syrians. Go to Zataari and ask them who they think is in the wrong.

I won't even delve into why 100,000 people being dead - that's not including the greviously injured or those currently being imprisoned by the regime, doesn't have you "banging the table".

Nice guy - the strikes being planned are being launched from ships in the Med. For the umpteenth time - a ground invasion is not on the table.

I knew that was coming Gosh - the just a rogue operator.

Both sides are as equally bad in my opinion.

Reading Kerry's speech again I am wondering if action in Syria provides them with the chain reaction they need in order to deal with Syria's ally, Iran.

Kerry manages to include what Reagan would have called every looney-tune country in his diatribe.

Gosh - you cannot simply fire a few Cruise missiles in stand-off mode somewhere off the coat of Cyprus. What does that achieve? Bugger all.

Iraq and Afghanistan taught us that it's not just about regime change, it's about nation-building. That's what we have failed miserably to do in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's also about setting realistic timescales and a budget for that nation-building so that we eventually have a credible exit strategy that leaves the country in a better shape than it was under the old regime.

That's a whole lot more than launching a few Tomahawks at Damascus.

It takes years to plan.

Wet - your opinions about both sides are not borne out by the facts. Not by history, not by actions, not by casualties and not by the opinions of Syrians who have fled the conflict.

Whatever you think of missile strikes - that is what is being planned. I have to keep reiterating that, because people in here still seem to think ground invasion is being discussed.

Again, I have described exactly why Iraq and Afghanistan are different nations with very different situations then Syria, but you do not seem to be comprehending this.

"I would rely on what I am being advised by the US and UK than any Syrian propaganda machine."

LOL you're being serious!!?!!

Ever heard of the
"Nayirah Testimony refers to the controversial testimony given before the non-governmental Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990, by a female who provided only her first name, Nayirah. In her emotional testimony, Nayirah stated that after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers take babies out of incubators in a Kuwaiti hospital, take the incubators, and leave the babies to die. Though reporters did not then have access to Kuwait, her testimony was regarded as credible at the time and was widely publicized. It was cited numerous times by United States senators and the president in their rationale to back Kuwait in the Gulf War.

In 1992, it was revealed that Nayirah's last name was Al-Sabah and that she was the daughter of Saud bin Nasir Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government. Following this, al-Sabah's testimony has largely come to be regarded as wartime propaganda "

The Nayirah testimony duped a wavering American public to enter the first Gulf War.

Nice guy - the strikes being planned are being launched from ships in the Med. For the umpteenth time - a ground invasion is not on the table.

Exactly!!! On it's own, it's completely stupid!

Like I said earlier, what exactly did Cameron expect to achieve? What's his military objective?

To get rid of Bashar? That isn't going to happen by launching a salvo of missiles from the med. All that will happen for certain is people will die. Will it be the people who launched the chemical weapons we kill? Who knows? Cos we don't even know for sure who launched them. John kerry says it's 'common sense' it's the government. But like I said earlier, we don't put people in prison using 'common sense' alone. We certainly shouldn't be killing people in their own countries with that alone. We need evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Irrefutable proof. The UN inspectors haven't even reported back yet. And we haven't had any dossiers from the SIS either. Yet you are ready to kill people on nothing but David Cameron's word alone? You must love him more than I do and I'm accused of being a Tory lover!!! lol

Could his aim be to help the rebels? Which ones? They're a rag tag bunch united only by their hatred of the government. It's common knowledge that they're no angels either and equally committed atrocities and suspected by some to have used chemical weapons themselves. Take away the government and you are left with a bunch of armed thugs who all hate each other. There's no united rebel army fighting the good fight. Just a bunch of militants supported by Al Qaeda fighters.

Stop the fighting? Really? By launching a small amount of missiles? Naive at best.

You can only stop a war by committing boots on the ground. Unless we're prepared to do that and put up with seeing more coffins draped with the Union Jack returning then it's best we keep out.

Also anyone ever heard of false flag attack on the Truly shocking stuff.

You can't send in the Marines every time something happens that makes people bang their tables in Surrey.

I agree with Niceguy that any action needs to be carefully thought out, goals established, and 100% control established over what and who will replace Assad if he is removed, unlike the debacle in Egypt (for which many Egyptians have and will yet lose their lives) and the disaster in Libya that will cost Hillary Clinton any chance of the Presidency, not to mention the shaky situation for Libyans in the wake of the Ghadafi removal. Where there is a void, Al Qaeda is ready and willing to move in and take over. Leaving matters open ended is letting down the people of the various countries where Al Qaeda are waiting in the wings for their opportunity.

I am inclined to agree with the position of Russia about all of the foolish intervention in the ME that has gone on since the first Bush days, all for reasons that turned out to be spurious in the extreme and that have resulted in an exponential growth of turmoil in the region and precious little else. That position would be (as far as I can figure out) - leave sentimentality out of it when making important foreign policy or military decisions/ stability is important and policies that threaten it need to have a really urgent rationale behind them/ any political movement that involves marching in streets or occupation of public places needs to have a wet blanket thrown on it, not encouraged by foreign governments no matter how worthy its aims - there are better ways of pursuing your political aims than taking to the streets (and this sort of thing would not be accepted within the US or in Britain or anywhere else in the west no matter how valid the pov expressed).

Launching missiles from Cyprus = 'Berlin by Christmas'

Well put niceguy.

Gosh

If the assad regime falls without a peace agreement, do you not think that there will be genocide of the alawites (and Druze and Christians)?

I just spent the last few days staying with some Syrian Druze (in the Golan heights) who, while appalled by the atrocities, are also terrified of what will happen to their family and friends in Syria post assad.

I think its interesting how little discussion there is about the role of the proposed gas pipelines in the whole conflict. Russia and the US/UK/Europe have quite different desired outcomes as to what pipelines are / aren't built across Syria.

There's one article discussing the pipeline geopolitics here.

Interesting Takver.

I just think the 'solutions' are going to have to come from within, and as people have said, it's going to be a long, step by step process.

If I put myself in the position of someone in the middle of a civil war, the last thing I would ever want, whatever side I was on, would be someone from outside, from a totally different culture, with little or no understanding of the real, underlying issues - to shell even one inch of my home turf. However well-intentioned, it's just too easy to make mistakes and bomb the wrong people.

On the other hand, international intervention - UN peace-keeping forces, for example - would be welcome.

During the Spanish Civil War, some people saw the conflict as a convenient way of getting communists and fascists to kill each other - saved them the trouble of doing it. (Meanwhile the International Brigades were risking their lives to fight for their ideals).

But what I'm wondering is - is it too cynical to accuse the UK and US governments of waiting until now because they would quite like there to be fewer militant Muslims in the world? Is it in US/UK national interest to stoke the conflict rather than calm it down? Could it be that Russia and China are the ones who are genuinely trying to make sure that any UN action is effective in calming down the conflict?

These are horrible thoughts.

The Daily Mail is very sensationalist which has to say something about its readers. I'd go to the Guardian or Telegraph for a more measured view of a situation.

Takver - If our govts really are evil behind-the-scenes manipulators, then it absolutely is up to us to hold them back.

So it was definitely the right outcome on Thursday night.

I suppose the most important thing we can do to help Syria is to give the UN our whole-hearted support and to remind our own leaders that we need to play our own bona fide part in that organisation. As one of the five permanent members that must be where our duty lies.

"Whoever said that the UN vote will be blocked by China/Russia. Well isn't that kind of the point? We'd be mad if we vetoed a vote and they ignored us wouldn't we?"

It just highlights the shortcomings of the UN and that countries will vote to serve their national rather than human right interests. It's not just Russia and China that do this - the US has vetoed resolutions regarding Israel. The UN needs an overhaul.

"there will be genocide of the alawites (and Druze and Christians)"

There WILL be genocide... that is the nature of civil war and this conflict is exactly that according to the expert (those would be the people who study the region and not the politicians). Then we can bang the tables in Surrey again and invite the victims to visit us in Kent.

Yes it's not perfect. It's national govts' job to fight for their own interests, and the UN's job to fight for what is best for the world - or at least the largest number of people, I suppose.

There's room for both. The UN should not be used to pursue any one country's own interests. Maybe it needs to be made more democratic.

there are better ways of pursuing your political aims than taking to the streets (and this sort of thing would not be accepted within the US or in Britain or anywhere else in the west no matter how valid the pov expressed).

I think this is very relevant to what response one should expect from the UK state. The popular uprising of people demanding political change is a valid form of political activity, however any state would act to intervene when that protest threatens "national or State security" International laws relating to the sovereignty of the nation state disallow one state from overthrowing another. If one state must respect the sovereignty of another and the people must respect this (nationalism is a hegemonic political ideology that is imparted to the people, not necessarily followed by corporations and banks and certainly discounted by class interests) then it should follow that one state would actively support another.

According to "left wing" parties here in the UK, the Syrian uprising is a "marxist revolution" (they wish!) and that of course alone would be a direct assault not upon the politics of Assad but upon the State itself. So even discounting the fact that various terror groups have gone in, this uprising throws into question the whole premise of the sovereignty of the State.

But do the Syrian people themselves know what they want, which group can claim to have the backing of the vast majority of Syrians?

If a popular uprising of whatever flavour, with unknown demands take place in somewhere like the UK, should the state act to defend itself?

I would suggest that is would, and that it could very easily progress from being a few rubber bullets if the activists were themselves being armed. As it is the anti-terror laws are being used to infiltrate and collect evidence about political groups. The anti-terror laws would be used to put down a political uprising where that threatened the state making claims upon its sovereignty. Would America be allowing other nations to arm the rebels? would they be supplying intelligence to us? Would they intervene and if so to what end?

America has an agenda in the M.E & they have at various times admitted as much. John Kerry is talking and he gives the game away, he is a neo-con intent upon American Empire who states "America will act in its best interests" its clear that this trumps the idea that anyone should act in the best interests of the Syrian people. Some of these rich white suits are so thick that even with speech writers, researchers and the control of western media they still can't string a conspiracy together coherently enough not to give the game away.

'Some of these rich white suits are so thick that even with speech writers, researchers and the control of western media they still can't string a conspiracy together coherently enough not to give the game away.'

Hang on. Isn't Kerry a Bonesman, a member of the Skull & Bones society of Yale University of which George Bush Junior was also a member? You don't get to Yale by being thick, and a Bonesman is definitely not thick!