Syria vote Labour demands evidence

[martyn20]

Dunno. I just wouldn't quote something as hateful as that website.

Fair enough, if the UN website was easier to navigate I would have quoted an article from the horses mouth

 

[Soulman]

Russia is not in the West and certainly not on the Western-Countries side in this dispute.
The fact is the UN team are only there to confirm if an attack happened no who carried out the attack.

From a cultural and sociological approach the Western world is defined as including all cultures that are directly derived from and influenced by European cultures, i.e. western Europe (e.g. France, Ireland, United Kingdom), central Europe (e.g. Germany, Poland, Switzerland), northern Europe (e.g. Sweden, Denmark, Finland), eastern Europe (e.g. Russia, Ukraine, Belarus), southeastern Europe (e.g. Bulgaria, Greece, Romania) and southern (or southwestern) Europe (e.g. Spain, Italy, Portugal), the Americas (e.g. Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela), and Oceania (Australia and New Zealand). Together these countries constitute Western society.

 

[beorhthelm]

Read the whole article and the 2 others I have posted links for.
They are talking about the mandate the UN inspectors have in the country, that's the point, that mandate does not change, the inspectors had just arrived for the previous investigation when the new one happened and carried on under the same instructions.

so events changed after they arrived, so should the mandate. lets hope that when they report they go out of scope of the original and report in a manner that clearly specifies the source of the attack. othewise there is no point in any UN inspection ever happening again.

 

[martyn20]

From a cultural and sociological approach the Western world is defined as including all cultures that are directly derived from and influenced by European cultures, i.e. western Europe (e.g. France, Ireland, United Kingdom), central Europe (e.g. Germany, Poland, Switzerland), northern Europe (e.g. Sweden, Denmark, Finland), eastern Europe (e.g. Russia, Ukraine, Belarus), southeastern Europe (e.g. Bulgaria, Greece, Romania) and southern (or southwestern) Europe (e.g. Spain, Italy, Portugal), the Americas (e.g. Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela), and Oceania (Australia and New Zealand). Together these countries constitute Western society.

But this discussion is related to political differences, not cultural and sociological differences. If Russia is not part of the previous or current Eastern Block of countries who the bloody hell is?

 

[martyn20]

so events changed after they arrived, so should the mandate. lets hope that when they report they go out of scope of the original and report in a manner that clearly specifies the source of the attack. othewise there is no point in any UN inspection ever happening again.

Their mandate is not to apportion blame, look it up yourself, they are not interviewing suspects and examining planes and artillery that may have launched the attack they are in the areas the attack happened talking to victims, how is that going to conclusively prove who dropped them. I guess if the bombs still have a serial number you could trace it back To confirm who did it the inspectors would be looking at totally different things would they not?

 

[martyn20]

Syria: security concerns force UN chemical weapons inspectors to delay second site visit

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.a...syria&Kw2=inspectors&Kw3=mandate#.Uh-ucH-Fsps

This is from the UN themselves and clearly states they are there to 'investigate the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria' major part of the team are specialists there to 'focused on public health, epidemiology and clinical management'. How are they going to help establish who dropped the chemicals, it's about if an attack happen, that's the only reason the UN inspectors are there, please check it out for yourself.

 

[beorhthelm]

This is from the UN themselves and clearly states ...

not an awful lot actually. its not saying what you claim, that naming names is off the menu. anyway, im not disagreeing with you, just saying i hope you are wrong. the UN is going to look fecking stupid on Saturday when the world waits for "evidence", if they report that, yes there were chemical attacks which everyone already knew.

 

[Soulman]

Their mandate is not to apportion blame, look it up yourself, they are not interviewing suspects and examining planes and artillery that may have launched the attack they are in the areas the attack happened talking to victims, how is that going to conclusively prove who dropped them. I guess if the bombs still have a serial number you could trace it back To confirm who did it the inspectors would be looking at totally different things would they not?

Why don't you just wait for the results instead of just assuming. As a previous poster insinuated, many terrorists will harm their own to gain sympathy.
Surely you are aware of innocent children being kept in buildings containing weapons and arms. When that building has been destroyed then suddenly it is a school and the outrage gets the news.
I don't trust either the government or the rebels. Best to get the facts right before reacting imo.

 

[BadFish]

About a million dead innocent Iraqis might not agree with you on that score.

Not to mention the 2 million refugees

 

[BadFish]

It is interesting that peace keeping now involves picking a side.

 

[martyn20]

Why don't you just wait for the results instead of just assuming. As a previous poster insinuated, many terrorists will harm their own to gain sympathy.
Surely you are aware of innocent children being kept in buildings containing weapons and arms. When that building has been destroyed then suddenly it is a school and the outrage gets the news.
I don't trust either the government or the rebels. Best to get the facts right before reacting imo.

I quite agree I do not trust the rebels anymore than the Assad regime but as I have said before the inspectors are not going to report to the UN about who did it, waiting for them to confirm an attack happened, something even the Russian no longer deny, seems a little pointless. The UK JIC has made it's finding public and the US is about to to release data about communications from the regime that confirm the instructions for the attack.
If the inspectors have done their job correctly all they will say is if an attack happened or not. Please lets wait until the weekend and come back to this when they have done that. They have no mandate or the tools to investigate who carried out the attack.

 

[drew]

About a million dead innocent Iraqis might not agree with you on that score.

Any stats as to how many died under Saddam's regime?

Listened to the debate on Radio 5 and Cameron came over as a statesman. Milliband came over as a.....er....DICK! Heaven forbid he ever gets voted in as PM, the man is as convincing as an idiot as he is as unconvincing as a politician.

I wish people would read what Cameron was saying, he fully respects the need to have the UN report, then the UN debate but wants the door open for UK involvement in military action if OKd by a second parliamentary debate and vote. Milliband was just posturing, and pretty unconvincingly too!

Problem is that the US and Europe should have sorted this out over a year ago instead of standing back and letting it fester.

TNBA

TTF

If Cameron is so statesmen like then why did he have to back track from his original postition before the debate of seeking a mandate straight away for military action. That said I don't think there is too much difference between the two motions but Milliband is right in demanding that we wait for the outcome of the UN inspectors report, regardless of how obvious the events (and perpetrators) may seem.

Sarin gas can be deployed in a number of ways - The rebels claim that it was delivered by missiles or artillery, but there is no evidence of that in any of the hundreds of videos and photos of the event.

Especially during the early stages of the uprisings, they overcame many of the SAA military compounds, you will often find them using military equipment and in all probability they gained these chemical weapons from these strongholds too.

They used them against civilians for the same reasons they have been massacring innocent people from the start - for propaganda and oppression

Your love of Assad seems only second to your devotion to Brezovan!!!

Yeah, and Iraq had weapons of mass destruction...

Assad, who is in the strongest position since the uprising began, randomly decides to gas innocent civilians ahead of a UN inspection....

You have two options - try to understand the situation and use your head - or just believe everything the US government tells you, because they are clearly an honest bunch with absolutely no hidden agendas....

You will not accept it but according to many reports, Assad had used gas on 14 previous occasions albeit in a smaller scale. One of the questions in the debate is why would he do this now. In the opinion of some it is that he is pushing the boundaries to see what he can get away with. If there is just talk from the international community then surely he is likely to escalate the use.

I would not believe all you see on the TV.

It was well reported that the turkish army found the "rebels" had stored there own sarin gas, in tunnels near the turkish boarder, they were/have used them on the Syrian kerds.

I cant understand why we would want rid of Assads secular Baath party and replace it with the Mad mullers of Islam fundamentalists...better the devil you know.

As far as I'm aware, nobody is disputing that the rebels have gas but they don't have the capability to deliver it in the manner in which this attack is believed to have been carried out!

AQ is a blanket term for any Islamist terrorist - and practically all of the fighting opposition are exactly that.

There are thousands of videos online now of this war, they film themselves in action for recruitment & propaganda purposes, and they always sing "Allahu Akbar" when people die, which really isn't indicative of a group who is fighting for a secular democracy.

In fact, many of the rebels aren't even from Syria - they are Islamists who come from all around the world to fight in what they consider to be a holy war, which is why they have such little respect for the Syrian civilians and go as far as massacring them, in this case, with chemical weapons.

Allahu Akbar has been a phrased used by muslims for decades and is not particular to AQ nor probably either side in the Syrian conflict. Also, you have absolutely no evidence that this was a massacre by the rebels yet you state it as fact. Where did you get your information from, other than trawling the web?

 

[Dandyman]

Well I would imagine we will attack them if they use chemical weapons?

So killing people is fine just as long as you don't use chemicals?

 

[martyn20]

So killing people is fine just as long as you don't use chemicals?

The use of WMD does change things. Or would you suggest we should intervene in every civil war around the world.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Just watching the latest 'bombing' report re a bomb with a napalm like impact....awful absolutely awful

 

[beorhthelm]

oh well, its acedemic now, the no's have it. we'll sit aside now and let them get on with it, chemicals or not.

(going to be a sticky wicket if firm evidence does come forward now, or if inaction leads to escalation.)

 

[martyn20]

Government has been defeated in the commons, probably means we will not be involved in any action at any point in the near or medium future. Total disaster for Cameron, very, very big misjudgement, could be very damaging.
Guess Assad is free to use whatever weapons he wants, it really is not our problem.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

Bloody hell....if Cameron can't take his own party along with him, his position must be under threat now!

Roll,up boris

 

[Ernest]

Total misjudgement by Cameron

 

[beorhthelm]

Bloody hell....if Cameron can't take his own party along with him, his position must be under threat now!

Roll,up boris

Boris would have made it any different? too many MPs worrying about perceptions if they back an ill-fated war. which they werent even asked to back. he must have carried a large number of Liberals so that tells a tale too. i count a substanial 93 abstentions too.