Printable View
BT
No it isn’t, the man presents the case for Russia and looks both ways at the same time.
What did it achieve well Look at the photos
Precision targeted demolition of stores and factories. No collateral damage.
But no doubt Jeremy will call them fakes.
This was not war on Syria but war on chemical weapons in Syria.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ssad-chemical/
Ah Fake News Balan, who knows what to believe. I can guarantee you though the Guardian isn't averse to publishing the odd bit of Fake News if it will advance it's narrative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Balanbam00
Anyway, just to confuse the issue further, try this,
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=164307
Last April the US launched 60 Cruise missiles in an attack on Syria, intended to put an end to Assad's alleged manufacture and use of chemical weapons. It remains a mystery to me why these three sites were not targeted back then. I can't believe that, with all their state of the art technology, spy satellites, spy planes, drones and intelligence operatives on the ground they didn't know about them.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldcolner
So why were they not touched back then, these research facilities, storage depots and manufacturing plants ? It seems a strange oversight, given the vast firepower at disposal of the US, could they not afford another half dozen missiles to take them out, or could it be they're not really what they say they are ? Are they like Saddam's WMDs, targets dreamt up by the intelligence services to keep their political masters happy ?
I only ask.
And I cant answer. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by sinkov
anti-imperialist ?.......I guess that would mean, something like....those against a nation extending its influence/territory through conquest - and being as in that article - it's connected to trollish behaviour etc, I'd imagine in this case, we're being leaned on to think in Pro-Imperialist terms - and from then on it's....All Hail the Supreme Power of agitating propoganda and limited thought doublespeak !Quote:
Originally Posted by Balanbam00
XD
I see Jeremy is now demanding incontrovertible proof that Russia was behind the Salisbury attacks. I guess that will apply here too.
I wonder what on earth that might be .... and where our justice system would be if this was adopted instead of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
In civil cases the balance of probabilities', is used often referred to in judgments as "more likely than not".
He also wants a law requiring a Parliament to approve military action to hold governments to account. Apparently it won’t apply if the PM is kidnapped (is that wishful thinking) or war is launched on us.
Asked whether he would back military action if the OPCW found the Assad regime was responsible for the Douma chemical weapons attack, he said: “I would then say, confront Assad with that evidence; confront any other group that may be fingered because of that – and then say they must come in and destroy those weapons, as they did in 2013 and 2015.”
He wants the UN to back action when Russia uses its veto to stop action against Syria?
So the man is in a parallel universe and cannot give a straight answer when his friends elsewhere in the world are involved. Pity for those in Syria that are being wiped out by barrel bombs starvation and chemical weapons.
MPs to question May on the attack today. Jeremy will come off worst as many of his MPs don’t back his shillyshallying.
The UK fired eight Storm Shadow missiles out of 105 used to punish Bashar al-Assad for his chemical attack in Douma last Saturday - less than the French and the Americans.
That’s because we have no ships capable of firing them. Our planes that did so are 36 years old and due to be scrapped next year.
Meanwhile Russia has yet to respond. Putin said to be furious that chemical weapon stores wee destroyed - well I suppose he might given his reliance on them. Cyber attacks on our NHS are feared.
Young girls family reports how a helicopter dropped a barrel bomb on their building that didn’t explode but hissed gas. Putin wants the world to believe MI6 flew a helicopter with a barrel bomb into his pal Assad’s territory. The Syrian rebels have no helicopters.
Is this incontrovertible Jeremy?
Yes I saw a piece in one Sunday paper, there were reports of a helicopter in the vicinity. In a piece in the Sunday Times the reporter claimed they had met victims of the attack and there was mention of something falling from the sky and a hissing sound, no mention of a helicopter. I wondered how long it would be before the two were linked and it was incontrovertible evidence that Assad had carried out the attack. Not long as it turns out. Strange isn't it how a family saw the helicopter drop a barrel bomb, it would be a 'barrel bomb' wouldn't it, much more emotive, when according to the earlier reports the bombing was so intense all the families were hiding in cellars.
OC you talk about our justice system and the balance of probabilities in civil cases, Corbyn is talking about acts of war, surely you can see the difference? I really don't care for the politics of it, which MPs will take his side, which won't, feck 'em all, couldn't care less, but we live in a parliamentary democracy, not a tinpot dictatorship whose leader can do as he/she pleases, our government only governs with the consent of the people, and if it wants to drop bombs on a country with which we are not a war, then it should be obliged to seek the consent of our representatives in Parliament. That's all Corbyn is saying and he's right.
As a general rule, then yes, Parliament should agree before we embark on military action.
But we can't have a law enshrined that could delay necessary action, for instance, we are under imminent threat.
But that was certainly not the case in this instance.
Like it or not, we must expect our politicians to act swiftly under certain circumstances - that has always been the case, it is called the Royal Prerogative.
In this case, yet again, we seem to be America's lapdog
The other big thing to be taken into account is the effect of bombing another country on how we are perceived as a nation, especially in Muslim areas.
Without doubt it will enrage a certain group of people, some of whom may actually live over here. I really hoped we had learned lessons from the past, but it feels like Groundhog Day again.
If you were living in Syria, and Syria decided to bomb England, then, depending on the circumstances, perhaps you would be very angry.
It certainly won't help in the fabled "War on Terror".