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

[ahinton]

Two what?

"Lord" Ashdown and Sky News were the only things in your sentence that could possibly be read as "two" anythings, so your question and your apparent need to ask it are as surprising as one another.

Never mind that; his anachronistic and antediluvian Colonel Blimpishness are sadly as typical of him as they are irrelevant in the general context of Parliament's fortunate decision yesterday.

[Resurrection Man]

......

The fact that Libya has largely dropped out of the news to be replaced by other Middle Eastern conflicts is hardly indicative that "the job was done" there. .....

You are missing my point, surely. I never said that. I was referring to the many naysayers on the forum who were against getting involved in Libya for the reasons I quoted.

[Resurrection Man]

....
Who knows? - but then who knows how many more might be dead as a direct consequence of military intervention in the area concerned? - not to mention how many more again might have their lives put at risk by the spread of a conflict in which it's not even certain yet as to who's been responsble for what?

Best sit on the fence then. Safer.

[Resurrection Man]

The pitcher doth not go so often to the well, but it comes home broken at last....

?????????

[Serial_Apologist]

Best sit on the fence then. Safer.

What fence?

[Bryn]

What fence?

The one the pitcher fell from?

[french frank]

Another view on the subject:

If the British Can Stop Their Government From Waging War in Syria, Why Can't We?

When we say "the US", what is that supposed to mean?

[Mr Pee]

"Lord" Ashdown and Sky News were the only things in your sentence that could possibly be read as "two" anythings, so your question and your apparent need to ask it are as surprising as one another.

You still don't explain why that was worth pointing out, or what you were pointing out in the first place. On second thoughts, don't bother. Life's too short.

Never mind that; his anachronistic and antediluvian Colonel Blimpishness are sadly as typical of him as they are irrelevant in the general context of Parliament's fortunate decision yesterday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23909554

I suppose, following the logic of certain posters here, that we should have come to an agreement with Adolf back in 1939; after all, one could argue that the Allied intervention only made things worse for many European civilians- after all, as long as you co-operated and supported the regime,and weren't in a minority, you were pretty much able to get on with your life. Then we wade in, with our house to house fighting, artillery bombardments, and carpet bombing of civilian areas.

The point that so many don't seem to get is that the use of chemical weapons- and now apparently napalm- are war crimes, and outlawed under the Geneva convention. If we stand by and do nothing in the face of such barbarism, we are turning our backs on the world- as Paddy Ashdown said, "shrugging our shoulders". And Milliband should hang his head at playing party politics with such an important issue.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10277706/Syria-was-the-last-straw-Ive-now-quit-the-Labour-Party.html

[french frank]

It's always good to investigate sources: Dan Hodges has quit the Labour party over the Syria vote, says the Telegraph story. Elsewhere we read in the same paper: "Dan Hodges is a Blairite cuckoo in the Miliband nest." No surprise there then. A Blairite has left Miliband's Labour party.

If we stand by and do nothing in the face of such barbarism, we are turning our backs on the world-

Perhaps. The dilemma is what to do, and whether it should be done at this point. Even the US didn't plunge straight in to the war to defeat Adolf, certainly not 'in 1939'. Arguably their timing could be improved?

[ahinton]

You still don't explain why that was worth pointing out, or what you were pointing out in the first place. On second thoughts, don't bother. Life's too short.

To explain some things to you, undoubtedly...

The point that so many don't seem to get is that the use of chemical weapons- and now apparently napalm- are war crimes, and outlawed under the Geneva convention. If we stand by and do nothing in the face of such barbarism, we are turning our backs on the world- as Paddy Ashdown said, "shrugging our shoulders". And Milliband should hang his head at playing party politics with such an important issue.

Of course they're war crimes if perpetrated on or by a government. What some don't seem to get here, however, is that, as there are so many factions within Syria, some of whose agendas are sponsored in whole or in part from outside Syria, and as it has yet to be established who's doing what to whom, blustering in with more weapons and hoping to find the rightg targets is just plain daft; I think that, by comparison (since you seem intent on making one), what was happening in Europe in 1939 was a great deal more clear-cut and recognised and understood as such by a great many more people. And why does you reserve your ire for Mr Miliband and not anyone else who voted against intervention?

[Tony Halstead]

An excellent post, ahinton, thanks!

[eighthobstruction]

Fantastic....I've almost got my card filled in this episode of RM and Pee Cliche Bingo....we had plenty in previous days, but today is a bumper crop....'sit on the fence'....'barbarism'....'shrug our shoulders'....'Hitler'....

....Yes we know all that, we really do, but we have not been rushed headlong into a hastey decision....it is not our fault Cameron mucked up the process, and now has ruled out any retaliation (of the blind imediate reactive automatic type)....NOW get around that table with Iran and Russia and get something sorted !!!....that's where we are wipe away your shame and start thinking....

....I'm off on holiday right now....cheers....

[Quarky]

Ashdowns second ref about UK credibility in the sight of the world from now on.... is also BUNKUM....

Ashdown is now an anachronism who is lost in his own forest of arrogance and earnest self confidence....

That sums up nicely my feelings about Lord Ashdown. A former soldier in the Special Boat Service, and from a military family, his politics seem to be based on the proposition that Britain is a subset of the British Armed forces.

Paddy, making Britain Big is not necessarily making Britain Better, for its ownself or for the world in general. I'm sure we have a few lessons to learn from the Chinese in this respect.

[Richard Barrett]

Ashdown seems to think that Britain's respect in the world is based on its governments' preparedness to kill people with missiles. I would go so far as to say that the majority of people in the world would take the opposite view.

[french frank]

Very difficult to sort out this tangled web but

1. Islam21c seems to be a UK-based organisation:

"i21C is the official website that acts as the portal of output for the research wing (iResearch) of the [Muslim Research and Development Foundation]. It publishes academic papers and articles using the principles of Islam as a source of governance and guidance. iResearch is dedicated to presenting a more lucid and confident Muslim voice on various topics. MRDF believes that Islam has a great deal to offer Britain and that a clearer and more equal exchange of ideas will lead to a flourishing of the quality of life in Britain for Muslims and non-Muslims alike."

2. It has reported, 18 July 2013, a 'fatwa' on Syria by Islam scholars 'denouncing the Syrian regime and forbidding continued service in the Syrian army and security forces. They have also called on all Arab and Muslim states to withdraw their ambassadors from Syria and put pressure on the states which are continuing to support President Bashar al-Assad's regime, especially Russia and China.'

3. It has mourned the sufferings of the Syrian civilian population and their repression over forty years: 'The scholars also announced their support for any sincere effort to curtail the bloodshed in Syria and to protect the Syrian people from a prolonged civil war which could destroy the country. Such support, they said, is a fundamental Islamic requirement.'

4. They also say (Intervening in Syria: a warning to the West): 'During this period [of repression], the western world has been looking on, making little or no attempt to alleviate their suffering. However, just as the Syrian people are about to take over Damascus and the regime is nearing complete collapse, the West is suddenly taking intervention very seriously.'

5. BUT, finally, they say: "A form of intervention that seeks to limit the true self-determination of the people, could result in a fallout that would be catastrophic to western interests in the long term.

" "No to ‘peacekeeping’ forces in Syria,” was the slogan announced for weekly Friday protests, according to the Syrian Revolution 2011 Facebook page; compare this to when Syrians were calling for military intervention last March. Moreover, Syrians have acquired more weapons than before and are better trained to use them. Syria must be mature enough not to allow anyone to hijack the victory they are achieving by their blood. They should be united in their stance - no western intervention, under any name or justification."

That suggests to me that a majority in the Commons took a wise decision. Are appearances deceiving?