News of the day

^^^ Possibly, or even just utter bullsh*t. After all The Daily Mail has been referenced here..

Apparently, Parliament's been recalled to discuss possible military response...

Isn't this what the UN is supposed to investigate & sanction before individual governments decide?

Yours etc

Naive of Stevenage

Edited by Jim Garten - August 27 2013 at 09:22

Padraic wrote: Blacksword wrote: King of Loss wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Tweets coming out of Syria from reporters on the ground are indicating that chemical weapons are being used. It looks absolutely horrifying.Here's a link to a video only for the brave. NSFW. I feel horrible, but I don't buy what the news media has told about us about the true perpetrators. Read this! From Yahoo news earlier this year. I'm surprised this page is still out there. Doesn't prove anything of course, but interesting nonetheless.. Obama gave green light to chemical attack - blamed on Assad - Yahoo! news Sorry, while I'm more apt to believe conspiracies these days, I stopped reading after "According to Infowars.com".

Yeah, meanwhile according to David Icke it's about those dastardly lizard people..

Joking aside, the news story did actually break on Yahoo! Alex Jones often links to mainstream media articles to back up his seemingly rabid claims. What he also does is inject his own perspective and present it as fact, which is wrong but to be fair that's pretty umch what the MSM does anyway. The perspective just comes from the editorial controllers rather than one man holed up in Texas, ranting and raving. He's still more credible than the likes of Glen Beck imo. Not that that would be difficult.

Honestly, they're doing this because they can make some "money" selling guns, tanks and chemical weapons. Just like they used chemical weapons in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, it's all done for "money".

^^^ The problem is, there isn't a solution.

We can leave the Syrian people to the mercy of Assad AND the bands of lunatic Islamists who will fill the power vacuum when he does eventually fall, or we can go in and make things a whole lot worse and probably enflame the entire region, and risk pulling Russia into a conflict that will escalate beyond anyones control, potentially in a matter of days.

If there was to be an intervention it should have been in the first month of the uprising, and should have been diplomatic and provided an incentive for Assad to engage with his people and hispopposition to avoid bloodshed. Easier said than done of course but there had been NO serious attempt by the west to broker a deal. Instead they deliberately let it get so bad, that when anyone voices opposition to military intervention, Cameron et al can turn around and say "What's the alternative? We have to do something now"

Let's assume for a moment that the wests intentions are entirely honourable and honest and nothing to do with feeding the Military industrial complex, opening a back door into Iran and are entirely based on a desire to do right by their fellow man...

We're two years too late.

Blacksword wrote: ^^^ The problem is, there isn't a solution. We can leave the Syrian people to the mercy of Assad AND the bands of lunatic Islamists who will fill the power vacuum when he does eventually fall, or we can go in and make things a whole lot worse and probably enflame the entire region, and risk pulling Russia into a conflict that will escalate beyond anyones control, potentially in a matter of days. If there was to be an intervention it should have been in the first month of the uprising, and should have been diplomatic and provided an incentive for Assad to engage with his people and hispopposition to avoid bloodshed. Easier said than done of course but there had been NO serious attempt by the west to broker a deal. Instead they deliberately let it get so bad, that when anyone voices opposition to military intervention, Cameron et al can turn around and say "What's the alternative? We have to do something now" Let's assume for a moment that the wests intentions are entirely honourable and honest and nothing to do with feeding the Military industrial complex, opening a back door into Iran and are entirely based on a desire to do right by their fellow man... We're two years too late.

Blacksword wrote: King of Loss wrote: Blacksword wrote: ^^^ The problem is, there isn't a solution. We can leave the Syrian people to the mercy of Assad AND the bands of lunatic Islamists who will fill the power vacuum when he does eventually fall, or we can go in and make things a whole lot worse and probably enflame the entire region, and risk pulling Russia into a conflict that will escalate beyond anyones control, potentially in a matter of days. If there was to be an intervention it should have been in the first month of the uprising, and should have been diplomatic and provided an incentive for Assad to engage with his people and hispopposition to avoid bloodshed. Easier said than done of course but there had been NO serious attempt by the west to broker a deal. Instead they deliberately let it get so bad, that when anyone voices opposition to military intervention, Cameron et al can turn around and say "What's the alternative? We have to do something now" Let's assume for a moment that the wests intentions are entirely honourable and honest and nothing to do with feeding the Military industrial complex, opening a back door into Iran and are entirely based on a desire to do right by their fellow man... We're two years too late. I would do absolutely nothing and let those two sides duke it out. Two sides? Part of the problem here is that there are multiple players. The hatred of Assad may unite the radicals and the moderates at this point, but beyond that there is no love between them. That's one of the reasons why this is destined to be a bloodbath. It's no picnic as it is.

There never is a "good" answer is there?

King of Loss wrote: JJLehto wrote: There never is a "good" answer is there?   As Blacksword so rightfully said, there's the "do nothing" approach and while this is generally what I advocate, it's difficult to swallow. Of course going in, well I'm not sure the track record but I dont think its terribly great and can lead to other issues. Even if intentions were good...you are probably right it's just too late now.   In theory it's all good: We can clamp down on violence, fill the void, set up democracy and etc etc but structure and natural development is key. But how long can we sit back  and wait for the process to happen while tragedy occurs? I just dont know Why should we care? I mean it's horrible for the deaths to continue to happen, but it's none of anyone's business except their own. Even if that means 1 million deaths, 2 million deaths, it doesn't matter. I don't want our fingerprints all over it.

Edited by JJLehto - August 28 2013 at 10:21

Gerinski wrote: Mini human "brains" grown in lab for the first time