Military action against assad.

[melthebell]

Several sites, including a BBC documentary, talk about 'what if' scenarios involving Russia invading Latvia but for Russia physically dropping bombs, nothing comes up. Unless your nephew might have confused Latvia with Lataki?

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/641193/Kremlin-brands-BBC-trash-World-War-3-documentary-simulating-Russian-attack

hmmm couldve, apart from the date it was published.

I just think he stumbled on some conspiracy theorist site, he has that type of mindset

[Jonny5]

hmmm couldve, apart from the date it was published.

I just think he stumbled on some conspiracy theorist site, he has that type of mindset

Oh yeah? Thinks for himself, not a sheeple?

 

We need more of them to open our stupid drone like eyes.

[melthebell]

Oh yeah? Thinks for himself, not a sheeple?

 

We need more of them to open our stupid drone like eyes.

no, he has mental health issues and DOES look at conspiracy theorist sites regularly

[alchresearch]

One day a big conspiracy theory will be proved right then all the nutters will have their day!

[melthebell]

One day a big conspiracy theory will be proved right then all the nutters will have their day!

well technically they have...WMD wasnt found in Iraq, trouble is now they use that as proof that everything else is a conspiracy Oo

[Harrystottle]

don't try to muddy waters

 

I am not trying to muddy any waters. I am stating repeatedly (and you are ignoring repeatedly) that our moral outrage depends on which side is being outrageous, us or them.

 

The British governmet in regard to foreign policy seems to behave like this.

1. Decide on a policy

2. Find evidence to try and justify the policy.

 

Tony Blair's was:-

1. Policy - Regime change in Iraq.

2. Justification - Weapons of mass destruction.

 

David Cameron's was:-

1. Policy - Regime change in Libya

2. Justification - Protecting Libyan civilians from attack by Gaddafi.

 

Theresa May's is :-

1. Policy - Regime change in Syria

2. Justification - Use of chemical weapons against civilians.

 

It's like a copper deciding someone is guilty and looking for evidence to support that guilt and deliberately ignoring any contradictory evidence.

 

Theresa May, should she wish, could construct a "moral" justification to support Assad and oppose the fundamentalists fighting him - but she doesn't wish to.

As the daughter of a Vicar and a regular churchgoer, you might expect her to get upset at the murder of Christians by Islamist fundamentalists in Syria - but she doesn't even mention it.

http://www1.cbn.com/ibrahim-62

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22270455

 

You might think that she would oppose Islamic fundamentalists in Syria because the same type of fundamentalists have committed terrorist atrocities in Europe - the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the Bataclan Theatre massacre, various truck atrocities, the Manchester bombing - but she steers away from the fact. Has Assad ever launched a terrorist attack against civilians in Europe? I can't remember one. Has Islamic state, who are fighting Assad? Yes, many.

 

She could be outraged about Islamic state throwing gays from rooftops in Syria.

https://apnews.com/bc4cf13c2b41454b820d7297f50bbf08

 

But she doesn't mention it.

 

She could be appalled at the burning alive by ISIL of captured Jordanian air force pilot Muath Al-Kasasbeh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muath_Al-Kasasbeh

 

Or at the beheadings on video of civilian aid workers in Syria by ISIS such as Alan Henning and David Haines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_captives_by_ISIL

 

But she doesn't mention any of this because it doesn't fit the narrative of The Evil Monster That Is Assad, and Why We Must fight Him.

 

I don't know the actual reason why we are determined to bring down Assad, but I am reasonably certain that it isn't righteous moral anger; especially given our record in the middle east.

Edited April 17, 2018 by Harrystottle

[melthebell]

I am not trying to muddy any waters. I am stating repeatedly (and you are ignoring repeatedly) that our moral outrage depends on which side is being outrageous, us or them.

 

The British governmet in regard to foreign policy seems to behave like this.

1. Decide on a policy

2. Find evidence to try and justify the policy.

 

Tony Blair's was:-

1. Policy - Regime change in Iraq.

2. Justification - Weapons of mass destruction.

 

David Cameron's was:-

1. Policy - Regime change in Libya

2. Justification - Protecting Libyan civilians from attack by Gaddafi.

 

Theresa May's is :-

1. Policy - Regime change in Syria

2. Justification - Use of chemical weapons against civilians.

 

It's like a copper deciding someone is guilty and looking for evidence to support that guilt and deliberately ignoring any contradictory evidence.

 

Is it right for Assad to use chemical weapons? (its not the first time)

Is it right for Russia to help him?

Is it right for both to stop the Chemical inspectors from accessing the site?

 

or do you believe these are part of the conspiracy? believe the official Russian line that no chemical attack took place?

 

Again your point on regime change is wrong, we tried that for the past 7 years, this was about a chemical attack NOT regime change.

 

I also take exception about the premise for your 2nd point, i believe attacking Libya was about regime change, again it was to do with the uprisings that took place so the west "helped"

 

Your first point, it was Bush, NOT Blair, Blair was just his lapdog

[Harrystottle]

OK, in order.

 

Is it right for Assad to use chemical weapons? (its not the first time). No.

Is it right for Russia to help him?. No, if they did.

Is it right for both to stop the Chemical inspectors from accessing the site? No.

 

or do you believe these are part of the conspiracy? believe the official Russian line that no chemical attack took place? :- Yes, I believe that no chemical attack took place this time. Not for any moral reasons but because it would be an incredibly foolish and counterproductive act for Assad to launch a chemical attack that drags the USA back into the war at the exact time that Trump is trying to get out of it. Assad has everything to gain by the USA going, the rebels have everything to lose.

 

Again your point on regime change is wrong, we tried that for the past 7 years, this was about a chemical attack NOT regime change. :- We have been trying to get Assad out for years, just as we got the late Misters Hussein and Gaddafi out. There are quotes all over the web to back this up.

 

 

Your first point, it was Bush, NOT Blair, Blair was just his lapdog: British foreign policy was to get Gaddafi out, which was the US's policy too.

[Waldo]

Is it right for the west to endorse the use of chemical weapons by a regime that it backs, but then years later, be critical when a regime it doesn't back also uses chemical weapons?

[apelike]

The plane shot down in Ukraine was from a Russian launcher supplied to the rebels,Russia is implicated.

 

Just because a country supplies arms to another does not make them complicit in the way they are used. If that was the case then all of the arms supplying countries are guilty in one way or another and not just Russia.