Syrian Gas Attack. Should the West intervene?

  • I don't think I'll be able to persuade you Ron, but here was the news story about it:


    He would say that, wouldn't he?

    It might have had some sense of credibility had the inspectors been allowed in straight away. He must think we are very gullible.

  • It might have had some sense of credibility had the inspectors been allowed in straight away. He must think we are very gullible.

    Inspectors STILL haven't got in. Any evidence is surely been wiped away now.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • What's the big deal about checking if Syrians were killed or wounded by chemicals or bombs, missile or machine guns? Is it because we're squeamish or offended? Perhaps we need a market research audience survey, eg


    Please rate which you least like looking at? 5 = horridly unbearable to see, down to 1 = unfortunate but watchable


    Someone who has just had their arm or leg shot off?

    Someone still alive but badly coughing, spluttering and having difficulty breathing?

    Someone dead with foam dripping from their mouth?

    A hand sticking out from building rubble, barely moving?

    A hand sticking out from building rubble that isn't moving at all?


    Would your unbearable-to-see rating be even higher if the victim was a child?


    Would the unbearable rating be higher still if there was a toy teddy bear lying beside the child?


    ***


    If your only thought is that this comment is disgracefully tasteless and callous then either you're missing the point or you can't admit to hypocrisy.

  • You're missing the point completely and we're going around in circles here.


    As I already said (I think) if you're burnt, have limbs blown off by bombs and bullets, of course that is horrific especially if it results in a slow death.


    The reason for the air strikes was to try and send a message that some forms of warfare are unacceptable and as this form of warfare has been used on British streets, I firmly believe the message (the air strikes) was as much directed towards Putin as Assad.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • A chemical weapons watchdog says chlorine may have been used in April's attack on the Syrian city of Douma.

    The interim report by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) said "various chlorinated organic chemicals" had been found but there was no evidence of nerve agents.

    Well, no surprise here.


    We knew it was a chemical attack, but at least the international watchdog agrees and yet Assad is still allowed to butcher his own people at will.X(

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Remind me again, what's so terrible about gassing one's enemies rather than bombing them to pieces or burying them alive in rubble?


    And as for "butchering his own people", everyone who knows the facts, knows it's a mixed bag of citizens with an unknown percentage of enemies within and an unknown percentage too stupid or stubborn to accept an offer of protected escorted evacuation. if I want to hear biased bullshit phrases like "butchering his own people" or "Trump tearing babies from their mothers" I'll listen to that sanctimonious virtue-signalling demented creep Jon Snow on Channel 4 News or a watered down version of bias from Beeb.


    I read your explanation in April, that our air strike was to show Putin that there is a nicer way of killing people. I had to believe you were kidding.

  • The world decided that chemical warfare was unacceptable and voted to ban it. We either try and follow some form of rules based system or we do not.


    Putin is trying to undermine that system and by saying that chemical weapons are okay, gives him and his supporters free hands to do what they want. By attacking Syria when we did, we sent a message that some of us in the world still believe in some form of rules, even those concerning war.


    As for the "nicer" ways to kill people argument, we've gone over that before.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • 1 We either try and follow some form of rules based system or we do not. Some of us believe in some form of rules, even for war

    n those concerning war.


    2 As for the "nicer" ways to kill people argument, we've gone over that before.

    1 Each country has its own rules. Who are you or I or this poxy government or the even poxier EU to say what the universal or global rules must be? If your only defence is is to say you believe in rules, that is no different to the mindless bureaucrat or Nazi chant "rules are rules"


    2 I know I've gone over this point before is a fair amount of detaail but I wasn't aware you had responded other than to say it is "unacceptable". Is that what you mean by "we've gone over that before". Please correct me if I'm wrong but this is a forum rather than a Facebook thumbs-up-or-down medium. Right?

  • 1 Each country has its own rules. Who are you or I or this poxy government or the even poxier EU to say what the universal or global rules must be? If your only defence is is to say you believe in rules, that is no different to the mindless bureaucrat or Nazi chant "rules are rules"

    Ridiculous point comparing Nazi rules to that of democratic countries and institutions.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment.