Damascus gas attack - who did it and how will the west spin it ?

[Richard Barrett]

RM, I've already commented on your reference to the attack on Serbia. If you'd like to discuss that matter further I would be happy to do so, since I've spent a lot of time there and I probably have quite a good overview of that conflict.

What I'm saying is that the USA is not interested in a solution to the conflict in Syria, or in minimising bloodshed, but in furthering its own imperialistic interests (and of course those of Israel) in that part of the world. For that reason I (and it seems most Telegraph readers!) am opposed to military intervention there. The accusation that Assad's army is using chemical weapons is neither here nor there. If the USA had any objections to using weapons that cause widespread death and suffering they wouldn't use such things (white phosphorus, napalm, cluster bombs, depleted uranium...) themselves.

Furthermore:
Escalation of the war in Syria could easily drag other nations in to become regional or global with horrific consequences.
The excuse of chemical weapons being used does not make wars of aggression legal, and indeed it's clear that both sides in Syria have committed atrocities, so why support one side rather than the other? If the US intervenes (on the side of al-Qaeda! which is hated by the vast majority of people in the region) it will draw more attention to itself as a possible terrorist target, and so of course will Airstrip One.
When was the last time outside forces supposedly intent on "nation-building" actually built a nation? - as opposed to creating chaos and suffering - especially when the Syrian opposition is in no way interested in creating a democratic Syria, or for that matter taking orders from the USA.

So whatever the solution for the Syrian people might be, it certainly isn't military intervention from the US and its allies.

[eighthobstruction]

Eighth is just commenting that before firing off ad hominem attacks (such as the above) none of us is holier than thou.

He's a very silly boy S-A....

[ahinton]

What I'm saying is that the USA is not interested in a solution to the conflict in Syria, or in minimising bloodshed, but in furthering its own imperialistic interests (and of course those of Israel) in that part of the world. For that reason I (and it seems most Telegraph readers!) am opposed to military intervention there.

I would have thought that most people already recognise and understand this, given the unfortunate longstanding record of US in this kind of activity but, as we can see, that's by no means the case, so it bears repetition here.

The accusation that Assad's army is using chemical weapons is neither here nor there.

Well, I wouldn't go that far; after all, it is important to the understand of what went on there last week that, if possible, the identitiy/ies of the perpetratos be reliably revealed; however

If the USA had any objections to using weapons that cause widespread death and suffering they wouldn't use such things (white phosphorus, napalm, cluster bombs, depleted uranium...) themselves.

Exactly; that's only one of the more significant of the hypocrisies various in all of this.

Furthermore:
Escalation of the war in Syria could easily drag other nations in to become regional or global with horrific consequences.

That's surely the most worrying risk of all.

The excuse of chemical weapons being used does not make wars of aggression legal, and indeed it's clear that both sides in Syria have committed atrocities, so why support one side rather than the other? If the US intervenes (on the side of al-Qaeda! which is hated by the vast majority of people in the region) it will draw more attention to itself as a possible terrorist target, and so of course will Airstrip One.
When was the last time outside forces supposedly intent on "nation-building" actually built a nation? - as opposed to creating chaos and suffering - especially when the Syrian opposition is in no way interested in creating a democratic Syria, or for that matter taking orders from the USA.

That's precisely the point; if anyone here who continues to harbour any doubt about this, let them please come forward and tell us about past incidents where uninvited violent military intervention actually ended up helping the invaded nation and its citizens - I certainly cannot think of one...

So whatever the solution for the Syrian people might be, it certainly isn't military intervention from the US and its allies.

Indeed.

[Resurrection Man]

Eighth is just commenting that before firing off ad hominem attacks (such as the above) none of us is holier than thou.

He said nothing of the sort and well you know it.

[Frances_iom]

I truely hope that Parliament has more sense than it seems boy David is showing - we need keep out of this as both sides have very dirty hands by now + just concentrate on the refugees (or at least support those that have picked up the costs thereof) - but Israel is again wagging the dog.

[aeolium]

The excuse of chemical weapons being used does not make wars of aggression legal, and indeed it's clear that both sides in Syria have committed atrocities, so why support one side rather than the other?

The issue of both sides committing atrocities could have been used just as well to argue against intervention in the Rwandan genocide (Tutsi attacks on Hutus preceding the genocide) and the Bosnian war. But to do so fails to recognise the inequality of the competing forces, and the fact that by far the greater slaughter in Syria (including indiscriminate slaughter of civilians) has been committed by the forces of Assad's government and those supporting him. If you have a state effectively using its army to destroy towns and cities and kill huge numbers of its people, or carry out ethnic cleansing, then there is a responsibility on the international community to respond to that. That responsibility is actually enshrined in the UN Responsibility To Protect principles (from wiki):

"1. A state has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing;
2. The international community has a responsibility to assist the state to fulfill its primary responsibility;
3. If the state manifestly fails to protect its citizens from the four above mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Military intervention is considered the last resort."

I am opposed to military intervention by the US and/or the UK in Syria as their previous Middle Eastern interventions have been so disastrous and they could not be seen as disinterested. But I might well have supported an earlier provision of arms to the FSA however problematic that might have been, so that civilian areas could have been defended. Whether there is any point in it now, when the opposition is so fragmented and in any case arms are being supplied from several other countries, I doubt. But the idea that diplomacy is the answer, when none of the participants is remotely interested in negotiating, is wildly optimistic.

if anyone here who continues to harbour any doubt about this, let them please come forward and tell us about past incidents where uninvited violent military intervention actually ended up helping the invaded nation and its citizens - I certainly cannot think of one...

I think the NATO bombing of the Bosnian Serb army in 1995 was decisive in ending the war and preventing further massacres such as the one in Srebrenica. After witnessing the abysmal efforts of European and UN diplomacy in the early years of that conflict, I was relieved to see the NATO intervention which I think prevented the war dragging on for years, with far greater loss of civilian life.

[David-G]

but Israel is again wagging the dog.

Really? Have you heard something that I have not?

[eighthobstruction]

The proposed plan of 'action' now being described by both the USA and GB Armed forces as ' contingency plans for attack'....I'm hoping that that is media hype. I'd rather hear contingency plans for a wide range of possibilities....I cannot imagine that the Thurs debate is going to be a 'pick and mix'. I hope the end result will be a 'no fly zone', and aggressive 'cruise missile' type options are off the table (what good will that do?)...."monkey with a grenade" seems a very apt description....

There is always the problem/consequences of Russian 'technicians' on there ground getting killed....and I believe that Lebanon will quickly become a battle ground too....

[Resurrection Man]

RM, I've already commented on your reference to the attack on Serbia. If you'd like to discuss that matter further I would be happy to do so, since I've spent a lot of time there and I probably have quite a good overview of that conflict.

No that's fine, RB. It was wrong of me to introduce that red herring !

I think that the first basic question is whether one believes that military intervention in a conflict such as Syria is ever justified. I happen to believe that it can be. To sit on the sidelines and do nothing is unacceptable especially when the use of chemical weapons is used against non-combatants. To say that it will embroil other countries into the dispute, it will escalate etc is frankly clutching at straws and a feeble attempt to justify doing nothing.

So, it then comes down to who gets involved and with what mandate. Let's consider Syria. If that mandate is by UN Resolution with support of Russia and China then would you not agree that military intervention such as a no-0fly zone was acceptable?

[eighthobstruction]

No that's fine, RB. It was wrong of me to introduce that red herring !

I think that the first basic question is whether one believes that military intervention in a conflict such as Syria is ever justified. I happen to believe that it can be. To sit on the sidelines and do nothing is unacceptable especially when the use of chemical weapons is used against non-combatants. To say that it will embroil other countries into the dispute, it will escalate etc is frankly clutching at straws and a feeble attempt to justify doing nothing.

So, it then comes down to who gets involved and with what mandate. Let's consider Syria. If that mandate is by UN Resolution with support of Russia and China then would you not agree that military intervention such as a no-0fly zone was acceptable?

It's not straws .....it's people....nations....SO , you love to ask questions, I'll ask you one....What happens next???....who have you punished - Assad in his bunker???

You are still in that armchair....you are not on the ground in Syria....Is the idea of 'PUNISHMENT' high on your agenda.....punishment of whom, who will be punished , what will that punishment look like....because that is what is being talked about - NOT No Fly Zones, it seems to be 'cruise missiles' are high on the agenda if the media is correct....and what might be Hezbollah's reaction to that ....

[Resurrection Man]

It's not straws .....it's people....nations....SO , you love to ask questions, I'll ask you one....What happens next???....who have you punished - Assad in his bunker???

You are still in that armchair....you are not on the ground in Syria....Is the idea of 'PUNISHMENT' high on your agenda.....punishment of whom, who will be punished , what will that punishment look like....because that is what is being talked about - NOT No Fly Zones, it seems to be 'cruise missiles' are high on the agenda if the media is correct....and what might be Hezbollah's reaction to that ....

Troll.

[Richard Barrett]

Troll.

That is really no way to carry on a discussion.

Regarding "no fly zones": enforcing them involves dropping bombs on heavily-populated areas - as it did in Libya, where tens of thousands of civilians were killed by NATO bombings. You don't just put up signs saying "please don't fly here". So no, I don't see what's "acceptable" about that.

[Frances_iom]

Really? Have you heard something that I have not?

They were reported as having sigint + other info connecting Assad with attack - also reported as offering the US a list of potential targets.

There were comments that Sarin (which all now seem to assume was the agent) is relatively easy to manufacture, Assad had large stocks, maybe in the several raids by opposition they managed to acquire some - it is possible that the agent was released by a destruction of some arms dump within the contested region tho I admit the behaviour of Assad (rather like that of Sadam Hussein) leads one to conclusion that he was responsible.

[eighthobstruction]

Russia and Iran cannot be ignored....what happens when an Russian cargo plane goes into Syrian airspace....if RB is right or if Syria (with sophisticated modern Russian air-defences with Russians manning them) decide they will not just lie down ....what then?? ....USA & GB effectively attacking Shiites in aid of Sunnis....and if you need to be reminded - the death toll per month in IRAQ is still over 500 from inter faction fighting....(1000 this month)....http://world.time.com/2013/08/27/rus...tion-in-syria/

[Resurrection Man]

That is really no way to carry on a discussion.

Richard, that was not a discussion coming from EO..that was a rant.

Regarding "no fly zones": enforcing them involves dropping bombs on heavily-populated areas - as it did in Libya, where tens of thousands of civilians were killed by NATO bombings. You don't just put up signs saying "please don't fly here". So no, I don't see what's "acceptable" about that.

I can find no reference to your figure of "tens of thousands".