Cannydc wrote:Haley is THE US AMBASSADOR.
In the words of Mandy Rice-Davies, "She would say that, wouldn't she ?"
Sadly some Quisling Alt-right and Quisling Corbynistas believe the Putin, Assad and Rouhani over their own countries
Didge wrote:Cannydc wrote:Haley is THE US AMBASSADOR.
In the words of Mandy Rice-Davies, "She would say that, wouldn't she ?"
And she stands againt the use of chemical weapons.
Dont you feel the same, or do you instead support Putin, Assad and Rouhani?
Didge wrote:Cannydc wrote:Haley is THE US AMBASSADOR.
In the words of Mandy Rice-Davies, "She would say that, wouldn't she ?"
And she stands againt the use of chemical weapons.
Dont you feel the same, or do you instead support Putin, Assad and Rouhani?
Trapper John wrote:Sadly some Quisling Alt-right and Quisling Corbynistas believe the Putin, Assad and Rouhani over their own countries
I'm neither, so where do I stand? - Only the last time I believed my government/country we we turned another which had law and stability into a hell hole of zealot factions each trying to do out do the other in acts of barbarity. Seems to me we want to do the same with Syria.
To what end?
Didge wrote:Cannydc wrote:Haley is THE US AMBASSADOR.
In the words of Mandy Rice-Davies, "She would say that, wouldn't she ?"
And she stands againt the use of chemical weapons.
Dont you feel the same, or do you instead support Putin, Assad and Rouhani?
Trapper John wrote:Didge wrote:Cannydc wrote:Haley is THE US AMBASSADOR.
In the words of Mandy Rice-Davies, "She would say that, wouldn't she ?"
And she stands againt the use of chemical weapons.
Dont you feel the same, or do you instead support Putin, Assad and Rouhani?
Any sane person would be against the use of chemicals weapons, chemical weapons full stop. Just as they would be other weapons of mass destruction, which is why we believed our goverments and turned a blind eye to them blowing Iraq back to the dark ages.
We were supposed to have had 'irrefutable evidence' Saddam had them and was about to use them, guess what? we didn't! - in fact we had 'no evidence' whatsoever.
Which is pretty much where we stand today, it's the same people telling us the same thing and what? you think they might be telling the truth this time?
Lady Murasaki wrote:Didge wrote:Cannydc wrote:Haley is THE US AMBASSADOR.
In the words of Mandy Rice-Davies, "She would say that, wouldn't she ?"
And she stands againt the use of chemical weapons.
Dont you feel the same, or do you instead support Putin, Assad and Rouhani?
Does evidence matter?
Didge wrote:Trapper John wrote:Sadly some Quisling Alt-right and Quisling Corbynistas believe the Putin, Assad and Rouhani over their own countries
I'm neither, so where do I stand? - Only the last time I believed my government/country we we turned another which had law and stability into a hell hole of zealot factions each trying to do out do the other in acts of barbarity. Seems to me we want to do the same with Syria.
To what end?
So dead and injured civillians is not evidence for you?
Or how the OPCW found that Assad and rebels were using chemical weapons?
Or how because they did, Russia then veto any further investigation
To what end?
Knocking out their capabilities to use chemical weapons
A moral obligation
Trapper John wrote:Didge wrote:Trapper John wrote:Sadly some Quisling Alt-right and Quisling Corbynistas believe the Putin, Assad and Rouhani over their own countries
I'm neither, so where do I stand? - Only the last time I believed my government/country we we turned another which had law and stability into a hell hole of zealot factions each trying to do out do the other in acts of barbarity. Seems to me we want to do the same with Syria.
To what end?
So dead and injured civillians is not evidence for you?
Or how the OPCW found that Assad and rebels were using chemical weapons?
Or how because they did, Russia then veto any further investigation
To what end?
Knocking out their capabilities to use chemical weapons
A moral obligation
What I struggle with here is that things don't add up. First and foremost why would Assad need to use chemical weapons on anyone? he's winning the war, it's the factions, many of whom wouldn't blink an eye at using them to bolster up their flagging insurgancy, who aren't.
Who would it benefit? certainly not the Assad regime - what's happening now is proof of that. However it does benefit those losing to either mislead the world with staged propaganda or even use the weapons themselves. They are the ones perpetuating this war, not Assad, they are the ones ensuring thousands of innocent people die every day for their own various causes.
Lastly, do you think Syria will be any better if Assad is ousted? - take a look at numerous other examples of where the West has stuck it's nose in, let me know when you find a shining example - or even a dull one.
Didge wrote:Trapper John wrote:Didge wrote:Trapper John wrote:Sadly some Quisling Alt-right and Quisling Corbynistas believe the Putin, Assad and Rouhani over their own countries
I'm neither, so where do I stand? - Only the last time I believed my government/country we we turned another which had law and stability into a hell hole of zealot factions each trying to do out do the other in acts of barbarity. Seems to me we want to do the same with Syria.
To what end?
So dead and injured civillians is not evidence for you?
Or how the OPCW found that Assad and rebels were using chemical weapons?
Or how because they did, Russia then veto any further investigation
To what end?
Knocking out their capabilities to use chemical weapons
A moral obligation
What I struggle with here is that things don't add up. First and foremost why would Assad need to use chemical weapons on anyone? he's winning the war, it's the factions, many of whom wouldn't blink an eye at using them to bolster up their flagging insurgancy, who aren't.
Who would it benefit? certainly not the Assad regime - what's happening now is proof of that. However it does benefit those losing to either mislead the world with staged propaganda or even use the weapons themselves. They are the ones perpetuating this war, not Assad, they are the ones ensuring thousands of innocent people die every day for their own various causes.
Lastly, do you think Syria will be any better if Assad is ousted? - take a look at numerous other examples of where the West has stuck it's nose in, let me know when you find a shining example - or even a dull one.
1) Because he can, when he is protected by Russia. Its not just the use of chemical weapons, he has used torture, murder, starvation in his methods of war crimes. He is a dictator at the end of the day
2) Assad carried out the attacks as it sends a message to the rebels, of what will happen to them. Chemical attacks are horrendus and it puts so much fear that no long after this attack. The rebels then negotiated to leave the town. That is how effective such a use of chemical weapons can be
3) Syria will be problematic for years, but under Assad, more and more people will continue to die and suffer
Trapper John wrote:
Sorry mate, I can't debate this anymore with you. I just saw a post of yours in another thread which said you couldn't possibly believe people would make false claims of 'hate crimes' after Brexit and yet here you are saying you can believe someone would use chemical weapons on his own people just "because he can"
Didge wrote:Lady Murasaki wrote:Didge wrote:Cannydc wrote:Haley is THE US AMBASSADOR.
In the words of Mandy Rice-Davies, "She would say that, wouldn't she ?"
And she stands againt the use of chemical weapons.
Dont you feel the same, or do you instead support Putin, Assad and Rouhani?
Does evidence matter?
How about the evidence from the OPCW?
Return to News, Politics And Current Affairs
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests