Felt a thread should be started to discuss Syria. Mainly due to the recent claims of chemical weapons use.
Do you think such weapons were used? If so, who by? The state say it was the rebels, the rebels say it was the state.
I think the weapons were used and used by the state because:
-Heavy mortar/artillery fire by the state on the site where chemical weapons were used which has likely destroyed evidence.
-Shooting at the U.N investigators convoy and blaming rebel 'terrorists'
It's only a matter of time until a military response from NATO is called in.
What ramifications would a strike by the US have on Russia/China/Iran, I wonder?
http://live.reuters.com/Event/Syria_9
Syria
Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum
-
Stars_InTheirEyes
- Posts: 5086
- Joined: Tue, 9. Jan 07, 22:04
Syria
Sometimes I stream stuff: https://www.twitch.tv/sorata77 (currently World of Tanks)
This sı not ǝpısdn down.
MyAnimeList,
Steam: Sorata
This sı not ǝpısdn down.
MyAnimeList,
Steam: Sorata
Given how Russia, China and America are arguing amongst each other about reacting to this slaughter of Syria's civilians (no matter which side is doing it), I cannot help but fear Cold War rivalries are playing a part here.
Why are they still trying to play power games when people, ordinary people, are dying?
Call me silly, but if a town full of people were gassed in China, Russia or America, they would mobilise armies right off. It's Syria though, so the response is 'let's have another meeting and ramp up the rhetoric'....
Why are they still trying to play power games when people, ordinary people, are dying?
Call me silly, but if a town full of people were gassed in China, Russia or America, they would mobilise armies right off. It's Syria though, so the response is 'let's have another meeting and ramp up the rhetoric'....
If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared. ... Niccolò Machiavelli
-
EmperorJon
- Posts: 9378
- Joined: Mon, 29. Dec 08, 20:58
Being the cynical bastard I am, I personally think it was the state, simply because I reckon if the rebels had them they'd be using them all the time against the state as opposed to using them as some sort of framed attack...
______
I'm Jon. I'm mostly not around any more. If you want to talk, please message me! It's cool.
______
I'm Jon. I'm mostly not around any more. If you want to talk, please message me! It's cool.
______
I think both sides have reason to lie.
However this sums things up for me (I know its about Snowden but there are Syria related parts)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... PxEuYUUMJI
Note the date 25/June 2013 He has predicted that we would be considering military action in Syria on mainstream media
However this sums things up for me (I know its about Snowden but there are Syria related parts)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... PxEuYUUMJI
Note the date 25/June 2013 He has predicted that we would be considering military action in Syria on mainstream media
There's the relevant part I believeIf this stuff is news to you it's because you weren't paying attention. But now the mainstream media is hyping it up, and now you ARE looking at this issue, and that's a good thing right?
Well, I can understand that view point, and on one hand it is better late than never, however I would counter with this, when the mainstream media covers a story constantly as they have here and when they obsess over every detail as it unfolds the first thing you need to ask is what other big story are they distracting us from? Remember when their right hand is doing something big watch the left hand.
In this case the big story that's slipping right under the radar is the war that's about to break out in Syria. You might not have noticed but the United States, France and Israel just framed the Syrian government for the use of sarin gas in the conflict, and they are now using this as the pretext to send in weapons.
The drama has taken a number of twists and turns. The first part of the story broke this past January when documents were leaked showing that a Qatar firm had been in negotiations to smuggle sarin gas to the Free Syrian Army in order to use it in an event that was to be blamed on the Syrian government. The firm claimed that the plan had the full support and approval of Washington. You would think the media would be all over this, but no, they were silent.
Then in April there were accusations by Israel that the Syrian government had used Sarin gas on civilians. Obama initially said that a red line had been crossed, but then the U.N. said they wanted proof, and for a while the U.S. went silent. The U.N. did their own investigation and they came back with a report indicating that it was the rebels who had used the gas. Well, surprise surprise. Again you would this would be a big story; you would think that this would be a scandal, especially since it is well known that the U.S. and Nato have been backing these rebels, but it was just a momentary blip on the radar, and then it was gone.
About a month goes by and then the French government, who has been the ever so trusty sidekick in this latest phase of the U.S. and NATOs war of terror, comes out claiming that it was the Syrian government that used the gas. Now once again we are back to the red line, and these criminals are getting geared up for the next war.
Make no mistake though, this isn't about Syria, it's about Iran. Iran is the real target. Iran is Syria's closest ally and they have a mutual defense agreement. This isn't just talk, they're putting their money where their mouth is. They're preparing right now to send thousands of troops into Syria.
This isn't a game folks. Russia and China have taken sides in this conflict. They are clearly in Syria and Iran's corner. Both countries have warned that if the U.S. and NATO go down this path the consequences will be disastrous. Russia has even indicated that thermonuclear war could result. Since neither Iran nor Syria have nuclear weapons this can only be interpreted as a direct threat from Russia, and yet these psychopaths running the U.S. and NATO are pushing forward with it.
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest."
-Thomas Paine-
-Thomas Paine-
I dont want to be that guy, but why would the state do it?
I mean come on, using chemical weapons is bound to get Uncle Sam involved and considering that after Hezbollah and Iran sent help Assad wasn't doing that bad, why would he use chemical weapons? Especially when the UN investigators are there? And then shooting them? Now thats beyond ridiculous
And another thing is - let's be honest here, none of us is a soldier, so if the West gets involved we are not the ones who will have to do the fighting, (US will end up doing most of the work, and even though they seem to be itching for a fight, what about common american soldiers?)
Also, just think about the gravity of the situation, the options West has:
a) move in - bomb Assad to oblivion - pull out, leaving a power vacuum and most likely leading to a series of skirmishes between different groups in Syria* (oh and who is going to protect alawites and possibly christians from the likes of Al-Nusra after Assad is gone?)
b) move in - bomb Assad to oblivion - embark on a new "nation-building adventure"; can the West afford that these days? What about the soldiers who will have to stay there for a very long time, what about the fact that terrorist activity will no doubt peak? Oh, and what do you do with Al-Nusra and other Al-qaeda associates?
c) send arms and other support to the "rebels" - prolong fighting lead to extra support from Lebanon and Iran (maybe even Russia) - essentially start a proxy war
d) do nothing
Of course this also assumes that there will be no further complications like say the whole region getting dragged into war, or Syria becoming a Vietnam 2.0 (or Afghanistan 3.0 whichever sounds better to you)
*Libya anyone?
I mean come on, using chemical weapons is bound to get Uncle Sam involved and considering that after Hezbollah and Iran sent help Assad wasn't doing that bad, why would he use chemical weapons? Especially when the UN investigators are there? And then shooting them? Now thats beyond ridiculous
And another thing is - let's be honest here, none of us is a soldier, so if the West gets involved we are not the ones who will have to do the fighting, (US will end up doing most of the work, and even though they seem to be itching for a fight, what about common american soldiers?)
Also, just think about the gravity of the situation, the options West has:
a) move in - bomb Assad to oblivion - pull out, leaving a power vacuum and most likely leading to a series of skirmishes between different groups in Syria* (oh and who is going to protect alawites and possibly christians from the likes of Al-Nusra after Assad is gone?)
b) move in - bomb Assad to oblivion - embark on a new "nation-building adventure"; can the West afford that these days? What about the soldiers who will have to stay there for a very long time, what about the fact that terrorist activity will no doubt peak? Oh, and what do you do with Al-Nusra and other Al-qaeda associates?
c) send arms and other support to the "rebels" - prolong fighting lead to extra support from Lebanon and Iran (maybe even Russia) - essentially start a proxy war
d) do nothing
Of course this also assumes that there will be no further complications like say the whole region getting dragged into war, or Syria becoming a Vietnam 2.0 (or Afghanistan 3.0 whichever sounds better to you)
*Libya anyone?
"If any idiot ever tells you that life would be meaningless without death, Hyperion recommends killing them"
lets pretend november 15 never happened
lets pretend november 15 never happened
That is a valid point.Jumee wrote:I dont want to be that guy, but why would the state do it?
I mean come on, using chemical weapons is bound to get Uncle Sam involved and considering that after Hezbollah and Iran sent help Assad wasn't doing that bad, why would he use chemical weapons? Especially when the UN investigators are there? And then shooting them? Now thats beyond ridiculous
My take? It's a cognitive dissonance thing. Assad and his people are 'right' they can do it, they should do it. They may well have convinced themselves that the US and others who object are wrong no matter what, the only important thing is victory.
Or alternatively, what if they have lost control of the military? What if its commanders have decided they need to do anything they can to avoid losing, because they know the consequences to them personally if they fail?
If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared. ... Niccolò Machiavelli
Or what if they have been bribed by an outside source?mrbadger wrote:That is a valid point.Jumee wrote:I dont want to be that guy, but why would the state do it?
I mean come on, using chemical weapons is bound to get Uncle Sam involved and considering that after Hezbollah and Iran sent help Assad wasn't doing that bad, why would he use chemical weapons? Especially when the UN investigators are there? And then shooting them? Now thats beyond ridiculous
My take? It's a cognitive dissonance thing. Assad and his people are 'right' they can do it, they should do it. They may well have convinced themselves that the US and others who object are wrong no matter what, the only important thing is victory.
Or alternatively, what if they have lost control of the military? What if its commanders have decided they need to do anything they can to avoid losing, because they know the consequences to them personally if they fail?
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest."
-Thomas Paine-
-Thomas Paine-
-
Sir Crashalot
- Posts: 3846
- Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
Why don't you want to be that guy Jumee, you are talking sense.
I said yesterday in the UN thread, Assad has nothing to gain and everything to lose by using chemical weapons. The rebels have nothing to lose and everything to gain by using them and making everyone think Assad did it. Mr Badger also has a point in that army generals might have authorised it without Assads knowledge, it is difficult to know for sure.
It is no secret that the US and UK have been itching to attack Syria, William Vague has been almost nonstop about it since the conflict began. So there is also the chance that this was done by a third party to allow the British and American fleets so conveniently placed in the Med to start attacking.
I'm not into the whole conspiracy thing but this whole situation stinks worse than one of Greypanthers farts.
I said yesterday in the UN thread, Assad has nothing to gain and everything to lose by using chemical weapons. The rebels have nothing to lose and everything to gain by using them and making everyone think Assad did it. Mr Badger also has a point in that army generals might have authorised it without Assads knowledge, it is difficult to know for sure.
It is no secret that the US and UK have been itching to attack Syria, William Vague has been almost nonstop about it since the conflict began. So there is also the chance that this was done by a third party to allow the British and American fleets so conveniently placed in the Med to start attacking.
I'm not into the whole conspiracy thing but this whole situation stinks worse than one of Greypanthers farts.
If you can`t dazzle them with dynamics, then baffle them with bullsh*t 
-
Dragoongfa
- Posts: 3857
- Joined: Mon, 27. Nov 06, 22:28
Now this is a subject that I was waiting to write about...
I am 99% convinced that the rebels (or a rebel faction) were behind the attack.
First of all, as someone who has been following the Syrian conflict in its entirety I can safely say that the rebels are currently losing the war, badly if I may add.
That's because the majority of the Syrians either don't support either side or openly support Assad. The majority of the rebel forces are currently foreign nationals with ties to extremist Islamic groups.
Currently the Syrian armed forces have captured most if not all of the major routes that the rebels were getting arms shipments and reinforcements in. The pockets of resistance left are surrounded with limited supplies and without any meaningful support from the local populace.
Then we come to the various war crimes committed by the warring factions, it's true that Assad initially stepped hard on the local rebels (to put things mildly) but the foreign nationals and the various terrorist groups that have sprouted up now rival even the worst war criminals in history.
The latest big example is the complete annihilation of a Kurdish village:
http://rt.com/news/syria-kurds-massacre-lavrov-132/
Then we have the abduction and murder of 2 Christian patriarchs on top of the campaign of terror that the various Islamist groups have launched against Christian, Alewite and Shiite populations of Syria.
The rebels had launched a chemical attack of their own back in mid march, using a homemade rocket.
I am 99% convinced that the rebels (or a rebel faction) were behind the attack.
First of all, as someone who has been following the Syrian conflict in its entirety I can safely say that the rebels are currently losing the war, badly if I may add.
That's because the majority of the Syrians either don't support either side or openly support Assad. The majority of the rebel forces are currently foreign nationals with ties to extremist Islamic groups.
Currently the Syrian armed forces have captured most if not all of the major routes that the rebels were getting arms shipments and reinforcements in. The pockets of resistance left are surrounded with limited supplies and without any meaningful support from the local populace.
Then we come to the various war crimes committed by the warring factions, it's true that Assad initially stepped hard on the local rebels (to put things mildly) but the foreign nationals and the various terrorist groups that have sprouted up now rival even the worst war criminals in history.
The latest big example is the complete annihilation of a Kurdish village:
http://rt.com/news/syria-kurds-massacre-lavrov-132/
Then we have the abduction and murder of 2 Christian patriarchs on top of the campaign of terror that the various Islamist groups have launched against Christian, Alewite and Shiite populations of Syria.
The rebels had launched a chemical attack of their own back in mid march, using a homemade rocket.
I too have been waiting to say something about this for a while, and actually I'm really in agreement with Dragoon. I would also say there is a very strong possibility that it's the rebels who are behind this attack. The fact is that we all wanted to believe at the beginning of the Syria conflict that it was all the downtrodden masses who were doing the rebelling, but actually it would appear that opportunists simply used local discontent and protests as a cover to infiltrate the civilian population and start bombing things on behalf of the Syrian people.
Actually they had no mandate all along apart from being conveniently placed to hijack an already tense situation (minority ethnic group ruling an oppressed majority) and use it to further their own aims.
As to what their own aims really are, I guess you have to consider where these people come from. As Dragoon has said above, these fighters are all foreign nationals and Islamic extremists, possibly even funded by Al-Qaeda and other similar groups. So I guess there aims are just to generally cause chaos and throw nations into disarray. During that disarray they can more easily convince locals who are under severe stress and panic to follow their extremists ideologies and submit to them.
It's exactly what happened in Iraq after the invasion. They simply came in to an already horrible situation and used it as cover to set up shop and start bullying the local populace. In that case it actually came down to the US arming local Iraqi militia groups so they could go in and clear out the extremist lot themselves.
In the end, especially with Assad still in place, the Syrian people may well end up rising up against the rebels once they realise that they are an entirely external threat. The only danger to Assad though with letting that happen is that then the mob would simply turn on him next and finish the whole job in one go. Or it could be massively empowering for him in terms of local politics to have been the saviour of Syria, driving out the barbaric foreign terrorists.
Of course from our perspective none of this really matters apart from actually caring what happens to the regular people who are caught up in the middle of all this, and the millions of refugees. But looking at the wider picture, the question that this really raises is, where are these people coming from? And how to stop them pouring in from all over the place.
I think to truly answer that question you have to look at similar movements of foreign mercenaries/terrorists/freedom fighters who have been going from South America to Africa to the Middle East for over 50 years now.
Actually they had no mandate all along apart from being conveniently placed to hijack an already tense situation (minority ethnic group ruling an oppressed majority) and use it to further their own aims.
As to what their own aims really are, I guess you have to consider where these people come from. As Dragoon has said above, these fighters are all foreign nationals and Islamic extremists, possibly even funded by Al-Qaeda and other similar groups. So I guess there aims are just to generally cause chaos and throw nations into disarray. During that disarray they can more easily convince locals who are under severe stress and panic to follow their extremists ideologies and submit to them.
It's exactly what happened in Iraq after the invasion. They simply came in to an already horrible situation and used it as cover to set up shop and start bullying the local populace. In that case it actually came down to the US arming local Iraqi militia groups so they could go in and clear out the extremist lot themselves.
In the end, especially with Assad still in place, the Syrian people may well end up rising up against the rebels once they realise that they are an entirely external threat. The only danger to Assad though with letting that happen is that then the mob would simply turn on him next and finish the whole job in one go. Or it could be massively empowering for him in terms of local politics to have been the saviour of Syria, driving out the barbaric foreign terrorists.
Of course from our perspective none of this really matters apart from actually caring what happens to the regular people who are caught up in the middle of all this, and the millions of refugees. But looking at the wider picture, the question that this really raises is, where are these people coming from? And how to stop them pouring in from all over the place.
I think to truly answer that question you have to look at similar movements of foreign mercenaries/terrorists/freedom fighters who have been going from South America to Africa to the Middle East for over 50 years now.
amtct wrote:If I hit a person once or twice is called instant death
-
Lion Around
- Posts: 519
- Joined: Mon, 6. Sep 10, 00:41
I could care less who is killing who in some third world country. As long as the US does NOT send 10,000 American boys to die in yet another pointless war in the middle east, I say I do not care about them one bit. Let them sort out their own problems, we've got our own to deal with.
<Edits made to tone down potentially quite offensive remarks. Watch the language here. Alan Phipps, Moderator>
<Edits made to tone down potentially quite offensive remarks. Watch the language here. Alan Phipps, Moderator>
People ask why the world stands by while it unfolds in Syria and condemn them.
Then when something happens that appears to force them to act, it's a conspiracy theory that they did it in order to get stuck in
Can't win either way. No idea who is responsible but I don't for one second think it could possibly turn into "Nuclear war". Not over Syria...
However, I don't think conspiracy theories is going to help matters either way
Then when something happens that appears to force them to act, it's a conspiracy theory that they did it in order to get stuck in
Can't win either way. No idea who is responsible but I don't for one second think it could possibly turn into "Nuclear war". Not over Syria...
However, I don't think conspiracy theories is going to help matters either way
Hmm, it seems to me that quite a few people are actually asking that the world does stand by, the (potential) involvement doesn't seem to have much popular supportChips wrote:People ask why the world stands by while it unfolds in Syria and condemn them
of course it will not, Russia will just wave a finger and that's all, no one wants to oppose US militarilyCan't win either way. No idea who is responsible but I don't for one second think it could possibly turn into "Nuclear war". Not over Syria...
It's not really a conspiracy theory, just an attempt to discuss the rather absurd situationHowever, I don't think conspiracy theories is going to help matters either way
"If any idiot ever tells you that life would be meaningless without death, Hyperion recommends killing them"
lets pretend november 15 never happened
lets pretend november 15 never happened
Discussing an absurd situation? There is many a good descriptor for it, but absurd? Fair enough though.
But by conspiracy theory, I simply refer to coming up and putting forth theories which are based upon pure conjecture from an observers 3rd hand point of view.
At least that's my interpretation of conspiracy theory
But by conspiracy theory, I simply refer to coming up and putting forth theories which are based upon pure conjecture from an observers 3rd hand point of view.
At least that's my interpretation of conspiracy theory
Unlikely. I may become better informed, experienced or more rational - but I highly doubt my brain is going to develop much further given my ageSir Crashalot wrote:He's just trying to be clever I think, maybe in a few years time after some practice he will be better at it
-
Sir Crashalot
- Posts: 3846
- Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
At the end of the day conjecture is all we have, the only people who know who used the chemical weapons are the people who used them and they aren't about to admit it.
From what I can gather it seems that the majority of people in this country are against intervention in the Syrian conflict. Of course that doesn't mean that everyone feels that way, we all have different opinions, that's just life.
I removed the post btw because it was trollish and could have derailed the thread.
From what I can gather it seems that the majority of people in this country are against intervention in the Syrian conflict. Of course that doesn't mean that everyone feels that way, we all have different opinions, that's just life.
That is something I can sympathise with somewhat.Unlikely. I may become better informed, experienced or more rational - but I highly doubt my brain is going to develop much further given my age
I removed the post btw because it was trollish and could have derailed the thread.
If you can`t dazzle them with dynamics, then baffle them with bullsh*t
Personally I really, really doubt that Assad ordered the chemical attack, if that's what it was - he knows a lot of countries would intervene at the first opportunity, and wouldn't listen to his excuses, so why go out of his way to provoke them? He couldn't exactly have expected an incident of that scale to remain secret, could he?
That leaves the following variously possible scenarios:
-The gas was dropped by someone in the Syrian army acting independently. If that's the case I don't put good odds on the guy's job security.
-The gas was released accidentally, perhaps a rebel stockpile in the area that was hit by the army's bombardment.
-It was not a chemical weapon at all but some other toxic gas release. I don't know how likely that is though...
-The videos were faked. But again with something that large, it would be rapidly obvious if it hadn't actually happened.
-Lastly and most disturbingly, it was released deliberately by the rebels or their backers in order to provide a casus belli for intervention.
Whether or not the UN investigators find evidence of chemical weapons won't prove much, because we still won't know how they were released. Judging by Willie Haig's comments we'll be bombing Syria at the end of the week regardless - that guy doesn't care much for little things like evidence. He's already implied that if they don't find anything it must be the regime covering things up.
That leaves the following variously possible scenarios:
-The gas was dropped by someone in the Syrian army acting independently. If that's the case I don't put good odds on the guy's job security.
-The gas was released accidentally, perhaps a rebel stockpile in the area that was hit by the army's bombardment.
-It was not a chemical weapon at all but some other toxic gas release. I don't know how likely that is though...
-The videos were faked. But again with something that large, it would be rapidly obvious if it hadn't actually happened.
-Lastly and most disturbingly, it was released deliberately by the rebels or their backers in order to provide a casus belli for intervention.
Whether or not the UN investigators find evidence of chemical weapons won't prove much, because we still won't know how they were released. Judging by Willie Haig's comments we'll be bombing Syria at the end of the week regardless - that guy doesn't care much for little things like evidence. He's already implied that if they don't find anything it must be the regime covering things up.
![[ external image ]](http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc431/X-IDProject/T26.jpg){kind=link}
![[ external image ]](http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc431/X-IDProject/F25.jpg){kind=link}
Well.....Chips wrote:People ask why the world stands by while it unfolds in Syria and condemn them.
Then when something happens that appears to force them to act, it's a conspiracy theory that they did it in order to get stuck in
Can't win either way. No idea who is responsible but I don't for one second think it could possibly turn into "Nuclear war". Not over Syria...
However, I don't think conspiracy theories is going to help matters either way
I think the people who are asking for war need to slow way down why is it that William Hague among other people is really asking for war?
Cui Bono?
(Who benefits)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0TEPO9jomE
(Hilary Clinton saying that Russia and China 'shall pay a price' for standing up for the Assad regime.
and I believe conspiracy theory is what we once called the fact that the Government reads all your emails opens your mail, can access your computer in real time..... Ohwait.....
Maybe the charge of 'Conspiracy theorist' should be put away for now hey
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest."
-Thomas Paine-
-Thomas Paine-
-
Stars_InTheirEyes
- Posts: 5086
- Joined: Tue, 9. Jan 07, 22:04
Looks like a decision has been made, or very close to it.
Warplanes and military transporters have begun arriving at Britain's Akrotiri airbase
Warplanes and military transporters have begun arriving at Britain's Akrotiri airbase
Sometimes I stream stuff: https://www.twitch.tv/sorata77 (currently World of Tanks)
This sı not ǝpısdn down.
MyAnimeList,
Steam: Sorata
This sı not ǝpısdn down.
MyAnimeList,
Steam: Sorata
Fair enough - assume we've (the west, collectively) supplied chemical weapons (forgetting that we've not had them for 50 years due to signed conventions - although I guess people could point to obtaining them from Libya perhaps?).
Why? What on earth do we gain from this?
It costs us money, it puts us in direct confrontation with Russia and possibly China. We do not know who is going to form a transitioning Government (which is why the US / UK haven't gone for direct intervention so far - whilst back in June 2012 Hollande was saying France would recognise anything the rebels form as a Government!) in the even that action disposes Assad.
Likewise people say Assad won't benefit because it's going to cause him to get spanked.
Who does benefit?
The rebels may benefit from action against Assad. That's very true indeed. I think it is very safe to say that there are significant elements of external extremists on the case.
The only reasons i can think of Assad doing it is because... a year ago Sarin gas was used with no consequence, they've taken delivery of new weapons systems from Russia, and Russia is using very strong terminology against intervention. The area of the alleged attack has also been motored and planes have bombed suburbs of Damascus as well. If you're keen not to get spanked, would you then prevent the inspectors from looking for a week?
It is definitely dodgy anyway - whomever is responsible.
Why are we so eager to act? I think that's fairly obvious. If it was Assad and we don't act, he'll be emboldened to use it again. Maybe not so much a test, more wiping out an entire town?
If it's the rebels and we don't act, then there's a chance they'll also use it again? Or worse, if its extremist rebels, actually use it somewhere more plausible for extremists... on foreign soil where it can really spread terror.
There's history, history which has shown what happens when we sit idly by... but I don't think it is something that people are willing to do in this instance. We'll just have to hope it was Assad and hope that all doesn't go to "pot".
Now perhaps I shouldn't point out that it's convenient that we happen to have a load of war ships not far from that area... but I'd also point out that its only 2-3 days sail from UK to Cyprus (I think). Wait, now you've got me starting on it ffs
Why? What on earth do we gain from this?
It costs us money, it puts us in direct confrontation with Russia and possibly China. We do not know who is going to form a transitioning Government (which is why the US / UK haven't gone for direct intervention so far - whilst back in June 2012 Hollande was saying France would recognise anything the rebels form as a Government!) in the even that action disposes Assad.
Likewise people say Assad won't benefit because it's going to cause him to get spanked.
Who does benefit?
The rebels may benefit from action against Assad. That's very true indeed. I think it is very safe to say that there are significant elements of external extremists on the case.
The only reasons i can think of Assad doing it is because... a year ago Sarin gas was used with no consequence, they've taken delivery of new weapons systems from Russia, and Russia is using very strong terminology against intervention. The area of the alleged attack has also been motored and planes have bombed suburbs of Damascus as well. If you're keen not to get spanked, would you then prevent the inspectors from looking for a week?
It is definitely dodgy anyway - whomever is responsible.
Why are we so eager to act? I think that's fairly obvious. If it was Assad and we don't act, he'll be emboldened to use it again. Maybe not so much a test, more wiping out an entire town?
If it's the rebels and we don't act, then there's a chance they'll also use it again? Or worse, if its extremist rebels, actually use it somewhere more plausible for extremists... on foreign soil where it can really spread terror.
There's history, history which has shown what happens when we sit idly by... but I don't think it is something that people are willing to do in this instance. We'll just have to hope it was Assad and hope that all doesn't go to "pot".
Now perhaps I shouldn't point out that it's convenient that we happen to have a load of war ships not far from that area... but I'd also point out that its only 2-3 days sail from UK to Cyprus (I think). Wait, now you've got me starting on it ffs