Livestream out of Syria

711 said:
I don't know if it's me, but people seem to be using the term civil war a lot more now, including the BBC.
Click to expand...

I haven't been listening the World Service or Radio 4 as much in recent weeks but i have been increasingly concerned at the coverage of the mainstream BBC at least.

Would we hear Fivelive giving these new stories a proportionate degree of attention?

Jihadist fighters shell a Christian village northeast of Damascus, exposing the sectarian divide in Syria's civil war.

Syria: Shocking video emerges showing rebel forces executing bound government soldiers

It would be nice to hear something from Cameron or Obama regarding their commitment to deal with the jihadists in a post-Assad environment instead of simply playing down their relevance. A dedicated force of drones for Syria? Trainers and financing for the new Syrian army? Not much of either?

Additionally their policy toward sectarian violence and the protection of increasingly vulnerable minorities.
 
I'm certainly not an expert of ME relations but I simply do not see the gain from US intervention in Syria. The right is running around claiming Obama is siding with Al Qaeda and the left is running around asking why are we risking another campaign when we have other areas of concern domestically. It's also being stated that why wasn't military action sought a few months ago when the same government apparently (did? supposedly?) used chemical weapons.

Side note in regards to chemical weapons. It's hilarious to hear rightwing radio personalities claiming/hoping/wishing these WMDs came from Iraq so they can give Bush a pass. I was quite surprised and pleased that Rand Paul, when speaking on air with blowhorn Lars Larson, refused to speculate the origination of these chemical weapons and refused to both blame Obama and applaud Bush. Lars was trying to push him into that corner. That said, Paul is still a dick.
 
I heard somebody say that the only active war declaration is on Al Quaeda but that we'd be allying with them if we went against Assad. So the US would be at war with and allied to the same group at the same time.
 
bsc said:
Cameron going mental the sarin gas we sold them was used.

Mental.
Click to expand...

:eek:

Just saw this.. Amazing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...d-export-of-nerve-gas-chemicals-to-Syria.html
Government allowed export of nerve gas chemicals to Syria

The Government is to face questions over why a British company was allowed to export two chemicals capable of being used to make a nerve agent such as sarin to Syria.

They licensed the sale of potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride last January, 10 months after the bloody uprising began.
Click to expand...
 
Hehe.

Might have been an honest mistake, and someone didn't check the list of countries not to export stuff to. Someone at my company emailed avionics data for a military helicopter to China by mistake.
 
adexkola said:
Hehe.

Might have been an honest mistake, and someone didn't check the list of countries not to export stuff to. Someone at my company emailed avionics data for a military helicopter to China by mistake.
Click to expand...

:eek: Did the NSA take them away?
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
:eek: Did the NSA take them away?
Click to expand...

I think the dude got fired. Our company got hit with a multi-million dollar fine, and we have to take training every few months on how it is not ok to export sensitive data without proper authorizations. It's a bottleneck at times because we use overseas contractors at times, but whatever.

Still, it's one thing to accidentally hit "send", it's another thing to produce, sell, and ship precursor chemicals to another country...
 
bsc said:
Cameron going mental the sarin gas we sold them was used.

Mental.
Click to expand...

Based on the articles posted, to say the British government sold sarin to Syria is a huge stretch. In fact, it's totally untrue. The government granted export licenses to companies selling chemicals that have applications in all kinds of every day manufacturing. And according to the government, the exports didn't even go ahead.
 
rednev said:
Based on the articles posted, to say the British government sold sarin to Syria is a huge stretch. In fact, it's totally untrue. The government granted export licenses to companies selling chemicals that have applications in all kinds of every day manufacturing. And according to the government, the exports didn't even go ahead.
Click to expand...

There are two important points here though:

1- The seriousness of the approach to things related to chemical weapons in both cases do not match.. "Oh it's an honest mistake", "Let's bomb Syria!". Surely if it's that serious they should have taken better care of the issue?

2- As it turns out, it might actually be much easier to get chemical weapons than many tend to think/suggest. "selling chemicals that have applications in all kinds of every day manufacturing", that "excuse" actually scares me more, because it kind of gives the impression that it's actually easy to get those chemicals, you just have to pretend to be manufacturing window frames...
 
Russia pasting us at the G20. Via James Cgapman.

G20 descending into acrimony as Russia dismisses UK as 'small island noone listens to' and boasts its oligarchs have 'bought Chelsea'

 
How does that come up in conversation exactly? lol

I'm not sure we cold rely on Cameron to respond with a sufficiently barbed comment of his own or an appropriate level of condescension and disdain.

Either way, it all sounds very small time this serious matter and that probably isn't unusual for these summits unfortunately.
 
I'm picturing the scene in Animal House where Eric Stratton protests the board and all the whistles and heckles from his group as the student president is making his points and the dean is attempting to hold jurisdition while the other students sit in awe.

G20 House.
 
bsc said:
Russia pasting us at the G20. Via James Cgapman.

G20 descending into acrimony as Russia dismisses UK as 'small island noone listens to' and boasts its oligarchs have 'bought Chelsea'
Click to expand...

Interesting words, given that the UK is a bigger economy than Russia and its capital city is the most important in the world alongside New York. And that's without mentioning that the UK is more influential than Russia in practically every arm of international influence, e.g. science and technology, academia, literature, art and TV/film, global development, finance and arguably diplomacy/international politics.

Russia's influence comes from its huge natural gas and oil reserves and its military power. Beyond that, it is not very influential at all.
 
Danny1982 said:
There are two important points here though:

1- The seriousness of the approach to things related to chemical weapons in both cases do not match.. "Oh it's an honest mistake", "Let's bomb Syria!". Surely if it's that serious they should have taken better care of the issue?

2- As it turns out, it might actually be much easier to get chemical weapons than many tend to think/suggest. "selling chemicals that have applications in all kinds of every day manufacturing", that "excuse" actually scares me more, because it kind of gives the impression that it's actually easy to get those chemicals, you just have to pretend to be manufacturing window frames...
Click to expand...


As you allude to in your second point, the manufacturing of nerve agents is hardly a difficult task for even the most undeveloped nation state and can be done by using basic equipment and easily obtainable materials. There was even a crackpot cult in Japan that managed to produce Sarin, which went on to be used in the 1995 Tokyo subway attack. Syria could manage it without the complicity of another country.

I don't think there is any contradiction in the government's two positions.
 
tCp90.gif


What's the point in China and Russia trying to provoke/stop the US/allies?
 
How angry can Russia get if their soldiers die because they are manning the air defense system and other weapons that they are sending to Syria because the Syrians can't operate the equipment? Fittingly, the Russians and Chinese are fine with whatever any sovereign nation does within its own borders as long as it isn't attacking another nation. Genocide? Not a problem. Religious, racial, or sexual persecution? Wonderful.

Also, Angela Merkel reminds me of lukewarm oatmeal. She has no personality.
 
Danny1982 said:
There are two important points here though:

1- The seriousness of the approach to things related to chemical weapons in both cases do not match.. "Oh it's an honest mistake", "Let's bomb Syria!". Surely if it's that serious they should have taken better care of the issue?

2- As it turns out, it might actually be much easier to get chemical weapons than many tend to think/suggest. "selling chemicals that have applications in all kinds of every day manufacturing", that "excuse" actually scares me more, because it kind of gives the impression that it's actually easy to get those chemicals, you just have to pretend to be manufacturing window frames...
Click to expand...

Well point two actually relates to point one. There are many chemicals that have multiple uses. We have seen fertilizer used to blow up a federal building in Oklahoma, just as one graphic example. I work for a company that used to have a chemical division (spun it off into its own company) and there were lots of chemicals we were required by law to report anyone that was not a registered large consumer (ie other large corporations) who tried to purchase any quantities over a certain amount. This was both to concerns of use in making a weapon or use in manufacturing drugs such as meth.

If I remember right the 1990's attack in Japan was done with Sarin that had been manufactured by the cult that committed the attack.

Like many things once it is known how something, it often is not that difficult for anyone to make it if they have a bit of training.
 
Grinner said:
I heard somebody say that the only active war declaration is on Al Quaeda but that we'd be allying with them if we went against Assad. So the US would be at war with and allied to the same group at the same time.
Click to expand...

Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. If you want to work for the US State Department, you'll need to expand your horizons.
Remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend even if he is my declared enemy, which, when you think about it, means Assad is our friend because he's an enemy of Al Quaeda. So in Syria we will have to attack our friend with the aid of our enemy because our friend is the enemy and the enemy is now, temporarily and provisionally, our friend.

I hope this message from John Kerry and John McCain clears things up.
 
rednev said:
As you allude to in your second point, the manufacturing of nerve agents is hardly a difficult task for even the most undeveloped nation state and can be done by using basic equipment and easily obtainable materials. There was even a crackpot cult in Japan that managed to produce Sarin, which went on to be used in the 1995 Tokyo subway attack. Syria could manage it without the complicity of another country.

I don't think there is any contradiction in the government's two positions.
Click to expand...

JustAFan said:
Well point two actually relates to point one. There are many chemicals that have multiple uses. We have seen fertilizer used to blow up a federal building in Oklahoma, just as one graphic example. I work for a company that used to have a chemical division (spun it off into its own company) and there were lots of chemicals we were required by law to report anyone that was not a registered large consumer (ie other large corporations) who tried to purchase any quantities over a certain amount. This was both to concerns of use in making a weapon or use in manufacturing drugs such as meth.

If I remember right the 1990's attack in Japan was done with Sarin that had been manufactured by the cult that committed the attack.

Like many things once it is known how something, it often is not that difficult for anyone to make it if they have a bit of training.
Click to expand...

Yes but you miss the point here. A cult in Japan can make Sarin, but Al-Qaeda can't??

The first point, it doesn't matter what excuse they give, it was obvious that (at the very least) they didn't care if Assad get chemicals he can use to make chemical weapons.. When they cared about Iran getting a nuclear weapon they're even punishing countries (and companies!) that are just buying oil from Iran! And with Assad (with all the talk about the danger of his chemical weapons) they can't even control the British companies not to export chemicals to him (or to Syria actually), and they even grant them permission to do so?!

Same goes with the US and the chemical weapon use by Saddam for 4 straight years (during the Iran war), it's very clear that their reaction to the use of chemical weapons in both cases was very disproportionate (to say the least).

In short, it's not about the chemical weapons, just like it wasn't in Iraq, although many people would love to think that it is..
 
Danny1982 said:
Yes but you miss the point here. A cult in Japan can make Sarin, but Al-Qaeda can't??

The first point, it doesn't matter what excuse they give, it was obvious that (at the very least) they didn't care if Assad get chemicals he can use to make chemical weapons.. When they cared about Iran getting a nuclear weapon they're even punishing countries (and companies!) that are just buying oil from Iran! And with Assad (with all the talk about the danger of his chemical weapons) they can't even control the British companies not to export chemicals to him (or to Syria actually), and they even grant them permission to do so?!

Same goes with the US and the chemical weapon use by Saddam for 4 straight years (during the Iran war), it's very clear that their reaction to the use of chemical weapons in both cases was very disproportionate (to say the least).

In short, it's not about the chemical weapons, just like it wasn't in Iraq, although many people would love to think that it is..
Click to expand...

Maybe the point was missed because the point you are now describing is not even close to what you said in the post I replied to.

Also could you point me to the spot where I said A-Q could not make Sarin? Or did I pretty clearly indicate that almost anyone could?

It is possible that the UK turned its back on the other purposes of the chemicals for a variety of reasons it is also possible that some human in the process just fecked up totally, though I would lean towards someone getting a nice kickback someplace along the line. It is not like Syria did not have chem. weapons before these shipments they have had them for a number of years, which makes the situation somewhat different from Iran where the focus is still on preventing Iran from gaining the capability of making nuclear arms. Not that it makes the issuance of the export licenses right, just saying the situations are not really the same situations, there are some pretty big differences.

Of course back during WW1 the European powers used chemical weapons on each other and in WW2 they all had the arsenals to do so but what that has to do with the current administrations or Syria....well it doesn't.

I guess the question is, because the then US Administration did not care about Saddam using chem. weapons does that mean that 25-30 years down the line that prevents a completely different US Administration from having a completely different outlook on things?
 
Let's not over egg the pudding so far as the export of any chemicals in recent years, for Assad and by extension Syria possessed significant stockpiles of chemical weapons regardless.
 
JustAFan said:
Maybe the point was missed because the point you are now describing is not even close to what you said in the post I replied to.

Also could you point me to the spot where I said A-Q could not make Sarin? Or did I pretty clearly indicate that almost anyone could?

It is possible that the UK turned its back on the other purposes of the chemicals for a variety of reasons it is also possible that some human in the process just fecked up totally, though I would lean towards someone getting a nice kickback someplace along the line. It is not like Syria did not have chem. weapons before these shipments they have had them for a number of years, which makes the situation somewhat different from Iran where the focus is still on preventing Iran from gaining the capability of making nuclear arms. Not that it makes the issuance of the export licenses right, just saying the situations are not really the same situations, there are some pretty big differences.

Of course back during WW1 the European powers used chemical weapons on each other and in WW2 they all had the arsenals to do so but what that has to do with the current administrations or Syria....well it doesn't.

I guess the question is, because the then US Administration did not care about Saddam using chem. weapons does that mean that 25-30 years down the line that prevents a completely different US Administration from having a completely different outlook on things?
Click to expand...

I wasn't even replying to you. It's the main evidence most of the pro-intervention people use to "prove" that Assad used the chemical weapons, which is: "Well, Al-Qaeda don't have them, and can't have them". It's been mentioned several times in this thread, and by Obama himself.. The point was pretty obvious if you're following the events, and the argumentation the US use to justify its position.

And you're getting into the "excuses" territory when it comes to Britain's mistake.. Of course it's also a possibility that somebody simply "fecked up", but the question that remains here is about the government seriousness in handling the issue compared to their reactions to Assad's chemical weapons (which is worthy of starting a war). If you're that serious about it, the chance should be very small that this is allowed to happen.

Also, "does that mean that 25-30 years down the line that prevents a completely different US Administration from having a completely different outlook on things?" Come on. We have this mini-debate every while here. What different outlook? 20 years ago they thought killing people with chemical weapons was a good idea, and now suddenly they realized "Oh, but many people will die!" so suddenly changed their mind about it? Come on..

I know you would love to look like the "savior of the world", and you try to justify your (pretty serious) actions by trying to convince yourself and others that you're merely after justice and welfare for the world, but in politics (and real life), we all know this is bullsh*t. The US (like any other nation) has always and will always be looking only after their own interests (and the interests of their close allies), and there is nothing wrong about that by the way, every country does it, but don't take us for fools here and try to convince us that the "new administration" has suddenly found its way..
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Let's not over egg the pudding so far as the export of any chemicals in recent years, for Assad and by extension Syria possessed significant stockpiles of chemical weapons regardless.
Click to expand...

Nobody said they were the reason why Assad has chemical weapons, but it's a bit odd that if the US is making such a great fuss about Iran's nuclear activity (for example), and then at the same time grant companies the permission to sell Iran Uranium.. I know the US will never allow such thing to happen because I know how serious they are about Iran's nuclear program.
 
Danny1982 said:
Nobody said they were the reason why Assad has chemical weapons, but it's a bit odd that if the US is making such a great fuss about Iran's nuclear activity (for example), and then at the same time grant companies the permission to sell Iran Uranium.. I know the US will never allow such thing to happen because I know how serious they are about Iran's nuclear program.
Click to expand...


The focus on nuclear non-proliferation in the past 20 years has meant that biological/chemical weapons haven't faced the same scrutiny. The US has restricted what chemicals can be sold to Syria for more than 20 years. When a US company was found to have sold certain chemicals to Syria, the owners, executives, and company were charged federally. The US has focused on preventing chemicals that can be used to produce chemical weapons in addition to nuclear/biological. Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea did provide the chemicals and supplies to the Syrian regime, but there were also suppliers in Europe. Lax regulations or oversight, along with indifference from the companies, saw Western European companies sell the chemicals to Syria, whether it was British, German, or French.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/w...a-amassed-nerve-gas.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&hp
 
Sir Matt said:
The focus on nuclear non-proliferation in the past 20 years has meant that biological/chemical weapons haven't faced the same scrutiny. The US has restricted what chemicals can be sold to Syria for more than 20 years. When a US company was found to have sold certain chemicals to Syria, the owners, executives, and company were charged federally. The US has focused on preventing chemicals that can be used to produce chemical weapons in addition to nuclear/biological. Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea did provide the chemicals and supplies to the Syrian regime, but there were also suppliers in Europe. Lax regulations or oversight, along with indifference from the companies, saw Western European companies sell the chemicals to Syria, whether it was British, German, or French.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/w...a-amassed-nerve-gas.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&hp
Click to expand...

And this is my point. If you're Britain you can't be this lax in your regulations, and then claim to be hugely and deeply enraged by the fact that they were used (before even knowing who used them) and go straight to bomb another nation.
 
What the deuce are the Ruskies up to? We wanna see night time bombing and massive explosions....where do they get off suggesting, Syria should place all chemical weapons under the control of international forces/entities!!!!

Piss off with these delaying tactics. Also not too happy with so many House of Representatives members already declaring they are against military action(130+)
 
What international forces will control them? Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.