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

[zoomy]

It would be interesting to know how other international charities really do view a western attack on Syria and the affect it would have on their income streams. This doctor has come out on the side of a western attack on Syria but how representative are those views in the charities community ?

[John Wright]

I did answer the question, but since you seem incapable of understanding my answer, I will simplify it for you.

The line was crossed when the Assad regime killed almost 1,500 civilians by the use of chemical weapons, which are outlawed under the terms of the Geneva Convention.

Got it?

OK, he crossed that line, but it is already too late with tens of thousands already killed by indiscriminate bombing (in reality, as a means of death, not much different to indiscriminate chemicals).

It is not Britain's war. Where were the Arab league or any sort of collection of good Arab politicians who could have made efforts to avoid this massacre a long time ago. (yeah OK, some of them have their own civil wars)

If UK get involved the whole Arab world sees us as 'the enemy' when in truth the enemy is themselves.

[french frank]

It would be interesting to know how other international charities really do view a western attack on Syria and the affect it would have on their income streams. This doctor has come out on the side of a western attack on Syria but how representative are those views in the charities community ?

There is the charities view, the military view and the political view: they all have to go into the equation.

Charities in this country must be apolitical, so I doubt they will, in general, go beyond fundraising efforts and doing what they can on the ground, whatever they think.

Oxfam view.

[zoomy]

I would not say that charities are apolitical. They are very political and generally on the right, particularly the international aid charities - they always support the western viewpoint which is why I wonder what they really do think of the Syria crisis at this time when the west appeared to come to a consensus that was quickly shattered. Are the charities disappointed at this in view of the impact it will have on their revenue streams or do they see an opportunity here to carry the western message through aid.

[aeolium]

Dr Rola could of course have been equally eloquent about the suffering in Baghdad had she been witness in the hospitals and the streets to the suffering caused by continuing bombings that have been going on for months and years now. Yet these are bombings that are largely the result of sectarian violence in the wake of Western military intervention which is presumably what Dr Rola is advocating in Syria. That sectarian violence in Iraq has caused many thousands of deaths and injuries since the end of military intervention and that is precisely why foreign policy cannot be formulated solely on the basis of an emotional response to a particular incident or a situation but has to take into account the practicality, legality and the foreseeable consequences of the policy.

[french frank]

I would not say that charities are apolitical.

I mean they cannot campaign politically as that would affect their charitable status. I don't think that's just limited to party politics.

Médecins sans frontières: 'Syria: MSF statements should not be used to justify military action'

[zoomy]

How far are Dr Rola's views representative of charities views on western intervention ? Presumably income and influence are important factors in decisiding charity views, they may not express them publicly and may feel compelled to express opposite views - we deplore war etc. etc.) but what are their lobbyists saying ?

[zoomy]

Médecins sans frontiers (the organisation that tried to take 'orphans' out of Chad for adoption in European homes) may be saying that in an effort to appear disinterested in the conflict and protect its operations in Syria.

[Quarky]

Anyway, as I've implied above, Ashdowns to Ashdowns, dust to dust...

French Frank is quite correct of course. Bashing Paddy is not the best way of elucidating some sensible conclusions in this matter.

All the same, it makes one wonder whether Ash Die Back is transmissible to humans?:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-23854862

[ahinton]

French Frank is quite correct of course. Bashing Paddy is not the best way of elucidating some sensible conclusions in this matter.

All the same, it makes one wonder whether Ash Die Back is transmissible to humans?:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-23854862

Whatever impression I may unwittingly have given, I really have no personal interest in "bashing" Paddy Ashdown per se; he's "bashed" himself quite effectively enough by saying what he's said and all that I and others have done is register our responses thereto.

OK - let's summarise.

Why intervene militarily if you are not entirely sure against precisely whom you are seeking to intervene?
Why overtly meet violence with more violence in order to try to satisfy a forlorn hope of achieveing peace?
What's so wrong about standing back and considering in full the (partly non-Syrian sponsored) complex factionalisation that pertains currently in Syria before trying to make an intelligent and constructive decision as to what, if anything, might usefully be attempted?
Why Syrian intervention in particular when there are so many other nations in which large scale atrocities of one kind or another are endemic - N Korea, Sudan, Somalia, Egypt, "Democratic" Republic of Congo, &c. et al? - where's the money and other resources coming from to sponsor and implement military action in all of these places at once, especially from nations such as UK which are already borrowed up to and beyond the hilt and are accordingly struggling to manage their own internal economies?

[french frank]

Add to those, the objective? Stopping the violence?

[ahinton]

Add to those, the objective? Stopping the violence?

I'd hoped that I had at least in part covered that by asking
Why overtly meet violence with more violence in order to try to satisfy a forlorn hope of achieveing peace?

[MrGongGong]

Why overtly meet violence with more violence in order to try to satisfy a forlorn hope of achieveing peace?

Quite
It seems very strange returning to the UK after three weeks away with no media contact that people seem to think that the solution to hideous acts of violence is to commit more hideous acts of violence ? and that suggesting that maybe it's not a good idea to do so is somehow the same as saying that it's OK for people to commit the original act in the first place ?

[french frank]

I'd hoped that I had at least in part covered that by asking
Why overtly meet violence with more violence in order to try to satisfy a forlorn hope of achieveing peace?

Not exactly: the sense of what you said was one question, mine was another: What would be the objective? The second half was merely a hypothetical (if nonsensical) answer.

[zoomy]

The objective would be to strengthen the rebels since they have been losing this war and the west has been desperate, to intervene on behalf of the rebels. They initially supplied arms and support via Saudi Arabia and Qatar but since the spring they have adopted an overt policy of support for the rebels, but they are still losing the war and since this is a proxy war, the winners will be Russia, Iran and Hezbollah (again in view of their successes against the US in Beirut and Israel more recently).