Military action against assad.

[Beauchiefs]

sky were interviewing in may's constituency this morning. They couldn't find one person in favour of airstrikes.

 

i'm not in her constituancy but am very much in favour of these air strikes.

[Dimple]

i'm not in her constituancy but am very much in favour of these air strikes.

 

Why..................................?

[mafya]

i'm not in her constituancy but am very much in favour of these air strikes.

 

Are you also in favour of the uk supplying arms to Saudi Arabia that are being used to kill civilians?

What’s your opinion on cluster bombs and white phosphorous ammunition’s that the west uses?

 

---------- Post added 14-04-2018 at 14:57 ----------

 

Russian troll bots all over the thread.

 

Plenty of sheeple too! ??????? baaaaaaaasas!

[melthebell]

Mission accomplished apparently

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43767156

 

The Barzah chemical weapons research and development centre near Damascus was hit by 76 missiles, 57 of them Tomahawks. The target was "destroyed"

The Himshun Sar chemical weapons storage facility near Homs was hit by 22 "weapons" - US, UK and French

The Himshun Sar chemical weapons bunker facility near Homs was targeted with seven Scout missiles and was "successfully hit"

 

---------- Post added 14-04-2018 at 15:06 ----------

 

hmmm it also says

He said "none of the aircraft or missiles were successfully engaged" by defence systems and all aircraft returned.

 

but i just saw a video and it said Syrian air defence had shot down 13 missiles Oo

 

lol and surprise surprise the russian briefing gave different accounts to the wests Oo

 

It said "a number Syrian military airfields, industrial and research facilities" were hit.

 

The ministry said 103 cruise missiles had been launched and 71 were shot down by Syrian systems.

 

It accepted the "alleged chemical weapons facilities" near Damascus and Homs were "partially destroyed".

 

The ministry said there were other locations that were targeted but not hit, including Damascus International Airport and the al-Dumayr and Blai airdromes, and the Shayrat air base

Edited April 14, 2018 by melthebell

[altus]

French assessment (in English) of the recent chemical weapons attack in Syria.

This document is based on technical analyses of open source information

and declassified intelligence obtained by French services.

 

Several lethal chemical attacks took place in the town of Douma in the late afternoon of saturday, 7 April 2018, and we assess with a high degree of confidence that they were carried out by the Syrian regime.

[BHRemovals]

they could at least have waited for the OPCW reprt

[Anna B]

Mrs May does not have a majority in Parliament which skews the legality issue. Nor did she wait for the weapons inspectors to get in there and asses the situation, so no evidence so far that will stand up in court that Assad was responsible.

 

I do hope that it will emerge she had a legally watertight case for going in, otherwise it will weaken the international rules of engagement and could be used to justify other nations in future conflicts going in without proper justification. There was no reason to rush.

 

There will undoubtedly be repercussions on the ground in the UK in the form of more terrorist attacks. I hope the British people consider it was worth it considering nobody was asked. No one knows how Putin will respond.

 

Is it really a good idea to bomb chemical weapon sites when you aren't sure what is stored there? - Isn't that risking the spread of possible viruses and toxins further?

 

Considering the only hope for long term stability in Syria probably lies with Assad, it's a bit of an own goal.

Edited April 14, 2018 by Anna B

[tinfoilhat]

I'm not convinced that Putin will respond. The West was careful enough to give the Russians plenty of time to clear out, hence zero casualties. It's also given Russia a test of their air defence. Now if you believe the Russians they shot down a third of the missiles, the West say zero. I suspect it's somewhere in between.

 

So successful weapons test on both sides, no casualties and some political posturing. Wins all round.

[melthebell]

Mrs May does not have a majority in Parliament which skews the legality issue. Nor did she wait for the weapons inspectors to get in there and asses the situation, so no evidence so far that will stand up in court that Assad was responsible.

 

I do hope that it will emerge she had a legally watertight case for going in, otherwise it will weaken the international rules of engagement and could be used to justify other nations in future conflicts going in without proper justification. There was no reason to rush.

 

There will undoubtedly be repercussions on the ground in the UK in the form of more terrorist attacks. I hope the British people consider it was worth it considering nobody was asked. No one knows how Putin will respond.

 

Is it really a good idea to bomb chemical weapon sites when you aren't sure what is stored there? - Isn't that risking the spread of possible viruses and toxins further?

 

Considering the only hope for long term stability in Syria probably lies with Assad, it's a bit of an own goal.

This is the legality of it apparently.

As for the chemical issue, i presume the chemicals either disperse or get burned up WITHOUT mixing and creating the chemical reaction that is dangerous?

[Anna B]

This is the legality of it apparently.

As for the chemical issue, i presume the chemicals either disperse or get burned up WITHOUT mixing and creating the chemical reaction that is dangerous?

 

I think the debatable area is 'the use of force must be necessary and proportionate.' with no actual legal qualification of what that might be, so both sides will have different ideas.