Livestream out of Syria

Quite apart from the fact that the Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda are, again, not the same thing, I really wouldn't take those claims seriously. Just like the 'Al Qaeda affiliate' claims made by Islamists in Syria, it's most likely about the money.

Danny1982 said:
If you don't present any evidence, then you can't claim that you have a point.
Click to expand...

Literally the only piece of evidence you've cited at any time is an old statement by Bin Laden suggesting that Jihadis should be cautious about using chemical weapons. If you want to start doing this properly with citations and everything then that's fine, but I very much doubt it'll go well for someone who believes in false flag conspiracies and a Salafi version of COBRA.

Danny1982 said:
How can it be more stupid than suggesting that bombing a country for three days is not an act of war, but rather just an "interference"..
Click to expand...

Was Israel at war with Syria in January? Was America at war with Iraq in 98? Were the Koreas at war in 2010? Was Iraq at war with Israel in 91? Was Britain at war with Russia in 1919? Was America at war with Iran in 1980? 'War' means something, not merely any form of military action. What America is currently planning will not, by any sensible metric, put it in a state of war with Syria. Unless Assad is really stupid.

Danny1982 said:
A specific organization ha? So that's why the US occupied two countries for 10 years, just to combat a little specific organization?.
Click to expand...

I don't even understand what you're suggesting here, that I'm wrong about Al Qaeda because Bush foolishly invaded a Baathist-run country? How does that work?


Danny1982 said:
Al-Nusra even pledged allegiance publicly to Al-Qaeda, and now you're arguing they're not the same people who blew the towers?
Click to expand...

I can publicly pledge allegiance to Sir Alex Ferguson. but it doesn't mean I won the Premier League 13 times.

Danny1982 said:
How do you explain it, and under which flag do you think they're fighting? No relation with Al-Qaeda my a**.
Click to expand...

They're Islamist jihadis, much like those that have thought in numerous conflicts involving Muslims in recent decades. It's increasingly obvious that you know very little about Al Qaeda's history and relationship with the broader movements it comes from. Try reading a book.

Danny1982 said:
6- Do you know that Al-Nusra Front is not the only rebels fraction that's associated with Al-Qaeda? Have you heard for example about the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (among others)?
Click to expand...

I mentioned them by name in my post...
 
Breaking News -

Cameron backs down on urgent Syria strikes

The Prime Minister has now said he will wait for a report by United Nations weapons inspectors before seeking the approval of MPs for “direct British involvement” in the Syrian intervention.

Downing Street said the decision to wait for the UN was based on the “deep concerns” the country still harbours over the Iraq War.

MPs had been recalled to vote on a motion on Thursday expected to sanction military action. Instead, after a Labour intervention, they will debate a broader motion calling for a “humanitarian response”.

A second vote would be required before any British military involvement. This could now take place next week.

In a statement on Wednesday night Downing Street said that it only wanted to proceed on a “consensual basis” and was now wary about becoming embroiled in another divisive conflict in the Middle East in the wake of Iraq.

Senior sources had previously suggested that Britain would take part in strikes as soon as this weekend which meant an emergency recall of Parliament was necessary on Thursday.

However, following Labour threatening not to support the action and senior military figures expressing concerns over the wisdom of the mission, the Prime Minister on Wednesday night agreed to put British involvement on hold.

The climbdown is likely to be seen as an embarrassment for Mr Cameron as he was determined to play a leading role in British military strikes, which had been expected this weekend.

The new strategy emerged after days of wrangling with Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, and after a succession of senior Tories had spoken out in the strongest terms against an intervention.

There were growing doubts that Mr Cameron would be able to secure a Commons majority before the UN reported back on last week’s gas attacks in Damascus that killed hundreds and injured thousands more.

Labour had demanded the Prime Minister agree to hold a second vote in the Commons after the UN inspectors concluded their work.

However, during a tense telephone call between the two party leaders at 5.15pm Mr Cameron “totally ruled out” giving MPs a second vote – which would have left Downing Street’s plan for a weekend offensive in tatters.

Labour then immediately announced that it would order its MPs to vote against the Government’s motion authorising military strikes. Just minutes before 7pm Downing Street was forced to redraft the planned motion saying that “before any direct British involvement … a further vote in the House of Commons will take place”.

On Wednesday night, a senior Conservative source said: “Labour has been playing politics when they should have been thinking about the national interest. Their position has changed continuously over the last 24 hours — finally ending in demands they had never even hinted at before.”

The Americans were consulted before Mr Cameron’s decision was announced and senior White House officials are said to have made it clear that they “respect the British Parliament”.

The move came just three hours after William Hague, the Foreign Secretary said it was “very important” for the UK not to leave it too long before launching strikes against Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

MPs will still debate and vote on a broader motion in the Commons on Thursday.

They will be asked to support the Government’s motion which states that a “strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons.”

However, crucially the motion then adds: “Before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place.”

Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, said: “We are ensuring the House of Commons has the final say before any direct British involvement — one vote tomorrow, and another one if and when we are asked to participate directly.”

UN weapons inspectors are not due to leave Syria until Friday, making it unlikely a second vote will take place before next week. Government sources said it was not inconceivable a second vote could be held late on Friday or even on Saturday.

Ahead of Thursday’s vote, MPs will be given a dossier of evidence by Downing Street that Whitehall sources have described as “utterly compelling” proof of Assad’s involvement in chemical atrocities against his own people.

It will include details of YouTube videos believed to show atrocities being committed by the Syrian regime. Mr Hague had on Wednesday reiterated that Britain must react urgently to do “what is necessary” to protect civilians and prevent further chemical weapons attacks by Assad’s regime.

Nato indicated its strong backing for Britain and the United States by saying that the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons “cannot go unanswered”.

Mr Cameron had drawn up plans to force his MPs to back a motion that the party’s whips are said to have warned was leading to anger among a growing number of backbenchers.

Several junior members of the Government have spoken publicly over their concerns and there were indications that there could have been resignations if a compelling case for British involvement was not made. Guy Opperman, parliamentary private secretary to Mark Harper, a Home Office minister, said that he was not in favour of “any military action”.

“For my part I see no plan, as yet, and more importantly, no strategy and exit,” he wrote on his website.

Other Conservative MPs including Sir Gerald Howarth, a former defence minister, Nick de Bois, the secretary of the powerful 1922 committee and Richard Drax, a former soldier, also expressed serious concerns. Tory grandees joined former military leaders and high-profile church figures to warn of the dangers of intervening.

However, Mr Cameron’s decision to delay also attracted criticism from within his own party. Douglas Carswell, a Conservative MP, mocked the government’s climbdown.

He said: “What to do when you cannot command a majority in Commons for Syria strikes? Table motion about something else. This is how we are governed.”

The team of 20 UN inspectors has been in Syria since Aug 18 looking into three earlier suspected chemical attacks.

Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN and Arab League special envoy to Syria, said the death toll from the “substance” used in last week’s attack — widely thought to be the nerve agent sarin — could rise to about 1,000.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...meron-backs-down-on-urgent-Syria-strikes.html
Click to expand...
 
Well done Ed Milliband for addressing the concerns of a sceptical public and waiting to see what the Un have to say first.
 
Airstrikes for the sake of airstrikes or as a punitive measure against Assad wouldn't do much. They need to be backed up with the resources to deal with the aftermath.
 
Drifter said:
Well done Ed Milliband for addressing the concerns of a sceptical public and waiting to see what the Un have to say first.
Click to expand...

This will do wonders for his popularity, and actually regardless of that I agree I think he's got it spot on. Not often a politician seems to make a sensible decision.
 
'Labour leader Ed Miliband has been branded a 'f****** c***' by government insiders after suddenly withdrawing support for a military airstrike against Syria, which forced David Cameron to abandon plans to push for imminent action.'

He's really wound them up, hasn't he?
 
Raoul said:
Airstrikes for the sake of airstrikes or as a punitive measure against Assad wouldn't do much. They need to be backed up with the resources to deal with the aftermath.
Click to expand...


Especially when the details of the the targets are being leaked all over the place so that things can be moved, etc. So yeah they will not do much except let Bushbama puff out his chest.
 
Raoul said:
Airstrikes for the sake of airstrikes or as a punitive measure against Assad wouldn't do much. They need to be backed up with the resources to deal with the aftermath.
Click to expand...
Snowjoe said:
This will do wonders for his popularity, and actually regardless of that I agree I think he's got it spot on. Not often a politician seems to make a sensible decision.
Click to expand...

More likely a little politicking just happened to coincide with public opinion.

The inference seems to be that Miliband will alter his stance if there is UN approval, he won't be addressing the electorate's concerns then.

It is the weight of opposition from a sufficient number of MPs which has made this possible, not their leaders.
 
I just find it a bit embarrassing how desperate Cameron is to start bombing. Such a small man.
 
TheReligion said:
Would be nice for other counties to get off their arses and sort out global affairs. Give the UK and US a break
Click to expand...

I have said that before, if the world is upset at the use of chemical weapons in Syria lots of other countries that can step in. Maybe not as easily as the US but others could do it. Just make use of bases in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, any number of countries could send in part of their Air Force. Sure it would take a bit to get the logistics straightened out, but hey there are smart people all over the world who could figure that out.

Basically my preference is the same as it was with Libya, we should sit this one out. Should have sat out of the Iraq invasion also, that would have been better.
 
Raoul said:
Airstrikes for the sake of airstrikes or as a punitive measure against Assad wouldn't do much. They need to be backed up with the resources to deal with the aftermath.
Click to expand...


If Syria retaliates by striking Israel it's the latter who'll be left to deal with the aftermath.
 
Silva said:
Out of curiosity, why is a bigger moral outrage when people get killed with chemicals, as opposed to bombs and guns?
Click to expand...

I suppose it's the numbers of casualties that may have tipped the balance here. There have been evidence for use of chemicals before, but the scale of the recent attack is something the free world probably can't be indifferent about. I'd expect the same response if people were rounded up and shot WW2 style.
 
Mihajlovic said:
I just find it a bit embarrassing how desperate Cameron is to start bombing. Such a small man.
Click to expand...

I very much doubt it's a decision he's taking lightly. With the facts we have at present (or lack of) I personally am against our involvement at this stage; but if Cameron is in favour of a military strike it's probably because he thinks it's the right thing to do rather than because he's 'desperate' for a good bombing session.
 
Mihajlovic said:
I just find it a bit embarrassing how desperate Cameron is to start bombing. Such a small man.
Click to expand...

I cant stand the man, but in this I think he is doing the right thing. He recalled Parliament very quickly, I doubt if he really wants to drop bombs, but the world cant not stand by and let this carry on happening.
Has holyland red said, the free world cant sit around and do nothing.
 
Government loses the vote. PM says it is clear that Parliament does not want action and 'I will act accordingly.'
 
pauldyson1uk said:
So does this mean that no British Missiles will be fired from any British boat or sub ?
Click to expand...

I don't think we can completely draw a line under it yet as the govt. will still review and debate the UN's report when it comes out (and today outlined its plan to hold another vote following that, although that was before tonight's loss). It certainly makes it significantly less likely that British forces will be taking military action.

On a different note, I wish wish wish that parties would stop using this for political point scoring. Douglas Alexander speaking to Newsnight focusing his points on Cameron 'failing to unite his party' and various other slights on his leadership. Regardless of your view on Cameron or the coalition I really don't think this topic is an appropriate one for party point scoring. Of course not just Labour doing it, Tories tweeting during the debate itself criticising the Labour motion were approaching from the same mindset. Disappointing to see the House not uniting on this one.
 
JustAFan said:
I have said that before, if the world is upset at the use of chemical weapons in Syria lots of other countries that can step in. Maybe not as easily as the US but others could do it. Just make use of bases in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, any number of countries could send in part of their Air Force. Sure it would take a bit to get the logistics straightened out, but hey there are smart people all over the world who could figure that out.

Basically my preference is the same as it was with Libya, we should sit this one out. Should have sat out of the Iraq invasion also, that would have been better.
Click to expand...

Yep I agree. Sometimes both the UK and the US can't win either way. They should leave it
 
pauldyson1uk said:
I cant stand the man, but in this I think he is doing the right thing. He recalled Parliament very quickly, I doubt if he really wants to drop bombs, but the world cant not stand by and let this carry on happening.
Has holyland red said, the free world cant sit around and do nothing.
Click to expand...

I fully understand that, but the question is what will come after Assad. Who will control Syria, the FSA or the al Nusra Front, or both plus who knows how many other smaller militias? And what will that mean for the Alawite Christian Druze Kurdish etc minorities? Will post-Assad Syria be a secular, liberal democracy or an Islamic Republic? There is no doubt in my mind that for his share in the committed atrocities on the civilian population Assad should be held accountable. For simple things like 'there are rebels shooting from that balcony, lets flatten the entire block'.

And we all know what happened after the US invaded Iraq and in what mess they have left Libya after Gadaffi etc etc. Military interventionism simply doesn't work, in my opinion- especially in light of the fact that efforts in diplomacy have not been exhausted yet. I'd rather see Cameron flying to Moscow and Beijing on weekly basis (if he is oh so heartbroken and concerned) and mobilising the entire world to move the Russians and Chinese to exhort some sort of influence on Assad in order to bring an end to the war.
 
I think Parliament has made a huge mistake. The motion wasn't even worded to give Cameron the so called 'blank cheque' to attack Syria, it was heavily worded down and now Parliament has ruled out even considering military action if new evidence arises. None of the leaders of the major parties wanted this.
 
There are reports today of an incendiary attack (possibly napalm) on a school in Syria. And because of tonight's events in Westminster, Britain and possibly even now the US (Britain's withdrawal will nudge opinion on Capitol Hill) will be unable hold Assad to account. He'll be able to do whatever the feck he likes.
 
If the UK is going to directly involve itself militarily in the war then it shouldn't be reactionary, it has been going on long enough for government to form a coherent strategy but that is not what parliament or the country was offered this day.

If Cameron returns with a plan reflecting the aftermath of such an attack it might garner more respect and credibility.

One thing i've noticed throughout this story is the contrasting media coverage. Whilst the Telegraph has regularly published stories about the wrongs of both the regime and opposition, i can't recall a single story or discussion concerning the war crimes of the opposition on BBC 5live.
 
There are reports that without UK support (intelligence etc), an American invasion could be difficult and even futile. Hard to see whether military intervention will take place at all.
 
I suspect that the impact is more of a political/diplomatic one, who else carries the necessary political will and military capability to participate in a practical way?

Obama/the US is going to very reluctant to attack in isolation or simply with those ME nations already engaged in the fight.
 
Chabon said:
Quite apart from the fact that the Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda are, again, not the same thing, I really wouldn't take those claims seriously. Just like the 'Al Qaeda affiliate' claims made by Islamists in Syria, it's most likely about the money.



Literally the only piece of evidence you've cited at any time is an old statement by Bin Laden suggesting that Jihadis should be cautious about using chemical weapons. If you want to start doing this properly with citations and everything then that's fine, but I very much doubt it'll go well for someone who believes in false flag conspiracies and a Salafi version of COBRA.



Was Israel at war with Syria in January? Was America at war with Iraq in 98? Were the Koreas at war in 2010? Was Iraq at war with Israel in 91? Was Britain at war with Russia in 1919? Was America at war with Iran in 1980? 'War' means something, not merely any form of military action. What America is currently planning will not, by any sensible metric, put it in a state of war with Syria. Unless Assad is really stupid.



I don't even understand what you're suggesting here, that I'm wrong about Al Qaeda because Bush foolishly invaded a Baathist-run country? How does that work?




I can publicly pledge allegiance to Sir Alex Ferguson. but it doesn't mean I won the Premier League 13 times.



They're Islamist jihadis, much like those that have thought in numerous conflicts involving Muslims in recent decades. It's increasingly obvious that you know very little about Al Qaeda's history and relationship with the broader movements it comes from. Try reading a book.



I mentioned them by name in my post...
Click to expand...

Look, you don't know what an act of war is, you don't know what pledging allegiance means (pledge allegiance to SAF?! wtf?!). And your information and understanding about Al-Qaeda is massively flawed. Like I said, you're just like McCain.. The know-it-all big mouth when he's in Washington, and when he steps into Syria (the reality), it only takes a couple of hours to show the fool he is.

Al-Qaeda and all other branches are the same.. Just the name and the personnel are different. They all have the same ideology and they all want to achieve the same goal, and they're all funded by the same sources (mainly Saudi Arabia). To make it closer to your understanding they're like an army (with few differences). An army also have different divisions. They carry different names. Each has its own assignments and leaders, but there is still connection between them and their ultimate goal is the same.

Same with Al-Qaeda and the other branches. They have many names, some publicly connected to each other, and some secretly connected to each other..

Now I'm not going to speculate about the branches that are secretly connected to Al-Qaeda, but to try to say that the branches that are publicly connected to them have nothing to do with actions like 9/11 is extremely ignorant. Of course they didn't plan 9/11 itself, the group that planned it and executed it is a very small group anyway, but they all belong to the same group, and whenever they get the chance they will do other 9/11s and 7/7s, because that's how they work, and that's how they've been working in Syria and Iraq.

And those are the people you're siding with now.
 
Danny1982 said:
Look, you don't know what an act of war is, you don't know what pledging allegiance means (pledge allegiance to SAF?! wtf?!). And your information and understanding about Al-Qaeda is massively flawed. Like I said, you're just like McCain.. The know-it-all big mouth when he's in Washington, and when he steps into Syria (the reality), it only takes a couple of hours to show the fool he is.

Al-Qaeda and all other branches are the same.. Just the name and the personnel are different. They all have the same ideology and they all want to achieve the same goal, and they're all funded by the same sources (mainly Saudi Arabia). To make it closer to your understanding they're like an army (with few differences). An army also have different divisions. They carry different names. Each has its own assignments and leaders, but there is still connection between them and their ultimate goal is the same.

Same with Al-Qaeda and the other branches. They have many names, some publicly connected to each other, and some secretly connected to each other..

Now I'm not going to speculate about the branches that are secretly connected to Al-Qaeda, but to try to say that the branches that are publicly connected to them have nothing to do with actions like 9/11 is extremely ignorant. Of course they didn't plan 9/11 itself, the group that planned it and executed it is a very small group anyway, but they all belong to the same group, and whenever they get the chance they will do other 9/11s and 7/7s, because that's how they work, and that's how they've been working in Syria and Iraq.

And those are the people you're siding with now.
Click to expand...


Al Qaeda and Taliban are fecking twats though.
 
I'd imagine the shitstorm of pushback over striking Syria thats emerged over the past 72 hours will cause those mulling it over to think twice and hopefully come up with a more comprehensive approach, or at least wait for a bit of credibility once the UN report comes out.
 
Raoul said:
I'd imagine the shitstorm of pushback over striking Syria thats emerged over the past 72 hours will cause those mulling it over to think twice and hopefully come up with a more comprehensive approach, or at least wait for a bit of credibility once the UN report comes out.
Click to expand...

I reckon it will also convince those in Israel who still need to be convinced that we are on our own regarding the Iranian nukes issue. I'm not sure there are going to be many here willing to risk Israel's security in future Israeli-Arab agreements in return for Western guarantees. I wouldn't expect those UK parliament hypocrites losing any sleep over gassed Israelis more than they're doing now. Whatever side one picks on this Syrian issue, it is clear that Western credibility in terms of not tolerating war crimes and mass murder has taken a huge hit.
 
Raoul said:
So i take it this wouldn't be a good time for me to holiday in Tel Aviv or Haifa ?
Click to expand...

I'm actually hosting a colleague who has plans to do some field work in Mt. Hermon next Wednesday! We got army clearance for the work too, but your Nobel Peace Prize laureates may still hamper our efforts. Actually that kind of makes me wonder if Assad could win next year's Nobel Prize in chemistry.

If you have plans for visiting get your gas mask on e-bay. Don't think you have a chance getting them here, particularly as it appears you lot have been spying on us.
 
holyland red said:
I'm actually hosting a colleague who has plans to do some field work in Mt. Hermon next Wednesday! We got army clearance for the work too, but your Nobel Peace Prize laureates may still hamper our efforts. Actually that kind of makes me wonder if Assad could win next year's Nobel Prize in chemistry.

If you have plans for visiting get your gas mask on e-bay. Don't think you have a chance getting them here, particularly as it appears you lot have been spying on us.
Click to expand...


Cool good advice. I suppose we should visit the place whose existence our tax payers have been subsidizing for decades more often.
 
Raoul said:
Cool good advice. I suppose we should visit the place whose existence our tax payers have been subsidizing for decades more often.
Click to expand...

It appears that most US taxpayers appreciate a true ally in the region. You get some pretty good intelligence in return too, only that you wouldn't listen. Arrogant Yanks.
 
Raoul said:
Cool good advice. I suppose we should visit the place whose existence our tax payers have been subsidizing for decades more often.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid a fair chunk of the problems in the middle east come down that very (unqualified) support. The threat of withdrawal of financial and military support should have been used to prevent the settlement of the West bank for instance.
 
711 said:
I'm afraid a fair chunk of the problems in the middle east come down that very (unqualified) support. The threat of withdrawal of financial and military support should have been used to prevent the settlement of the West bank for instance.
Click to expand...

hehe...muslims gassing muslims and who's to blame but the Yanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.