We’re bombing Syria

  • Thread starter Thread starter mat
  • Start date Start date
Homar said:
No, you are quite mistaken. I was referring to the debate in the House of Commons on antisemitism. I do not recall any debate on the influence of the Israel lobby.

That book is written by a professor of political science at Harvard University. And since you have dismissed the book outright, perhaps you will take the word of Israel's own Benjamin Netanyahu. Here is a quote directly attributable to him:

"I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won't get in the way."
Click to expand...
All of the above having sod all to do with the “the bbc being infected by the Israel Lobby”, which was the subject of discussion.
 
Homar said:
1) On killing people, the US is an expert on that.
2) On using chemical weapons, the US can count itself a member of that club.
3) On using unguided bombs, Syria does not have the luxury of modern precision guided bombs.
4) On shooting down civilian airliners, the US can also count itself a member of that club.
Click to expand...

Top quality whataboutism
 
SWP's back said:
All of the above having sod all to do with the “the bbc being infected by the Israel Lobby”, which was the subject of discussion.
Click to expand...

You have now changed the word to "infected", which is still not an accurate quote from the person in question. And I was not taking specifically about the BBC. Not once did I say that I agreed with his claim either. My responses were concerning the Israel lobby in general. I did not narrow the discussion to their influence on one particular organisation or in one particular country.

SWP's back said:
Top quality whataboutism
Click to expand...

It is all relevant to the point I was making. You cannot slander Russia for those crimes and then give the US a free pass to commit the very same crimes. What is so difficult to understand about this? If you apply one set of standards to Russia, you better be willing to apply those same set of standards to the US or any other country for that matter.

I often read about US "exceptionalism" being the mitigating factor. That the US does not need to abide by international law because it is "exceptional". That the US can do as it pleases, no matter the cost, because it is "exceptional". That what's good for the goose is not good for the gander because the US is "exceptional". This is logic reminiscent of Nazi Germany.

I am under no illusions that nobody can stop the US continuing on its path of wrecking destruction throughout the Middle East. Its military budget is larger than all other states combined. Nobody can stop them doing as they please. It's doctrine, as so pointedly summarised by John Bolton, is that the only thing that matters is what is in America's national interests. Human right, arguments over what is ethical and the deaths of non-Americans are all mute points, so long as they serve America's national interests.
 
Last edited:
Homar said:
It is all relevant to the point I was making. You cannot slander Russia for those crimes and then give the US a free pass to commit the very same crimes. What is so difficult to understand about this? If you apply one set of standards to Russia, you better be willing to apply those same set of standards to the US or any other country for that matter.
Click to expand...

You need to look up the definition of slander first of all as you don’t understand the term.

Second, if you want to start a thread about chemical weapon use in Vietnam then I’ll join in the discussion and call them out for it.

As I’ve already stated, Russia/Assad shouldn’t get a free pass to continue to contravene international with regards the convention on chemical weapons because the US legally used them three generations ago.
 
Homar said:
Even if that were correct, it has no relevance. Those people lived on that land and that is all that matters.
Click to expand...

Mercians have lived in Manchester for thousands for years, therefore we should be independent from the UK despite not having a Mercian nation in 15 centuries yes?

The forcible displacement of a people is ethnic cleansing, which you appear to be defending.
Click to expand...

It looks that way if you're an idiot, I agree.

But I'm not an idiot and I presume that a good portion of readers aren't because they actually read posts rather than make up what they want to say because it is visually similar.
 
Homar said:
You have now changed the word to "infected", which is still not an accurate quote from the person in question. And I was not taking specifically about the BBC. Not once did I say that I agreed with his claim either. My responses were concerning the Israel lobby in general. I did not narrow the discussion to their influence on one particular organisation or in one particular country.
Click to expand...
However the discussion was about the BBC so if you weren't referring specifically to the BBC or the UK why mention it at all. All your posts are perfect examples of Whataboutery with no real contribution to the topic under discussion.
 
SWP's back said:
You need to look up the definition of slander first of all as you don’t understand the term.

Second, if you want to start a thread about chemical weapon use in Vietnam then I’ll join in the discussion and call them out for it.

As I’ve already stated, Russia/Assad shouldn’t get a free pass to continue to contravene international with regards the convention on chemical weapons because the US legally used them three generations ago.
Click to expand...

You again conveniently ignore the fact that the US has still presented no evidence to provide substance to its claims. Quite unbelievable that you should take their word for it then, since they have a history of failed intelligence on this subject. I have never defended the use of chemical weapons, but I am consistent in that it is a moral crime regardless of who uses them, whether that be the US, Russia or Syria. If the OPCW had found definitive proof of their use, and the Syrian government were proved to be culpable, then your point would stand.
 
Damocles said:
Mercians have lived in Manchester for thousands for years, therefore we should be independent from the UK despite not having a Mercian nation in 15 centuries yes?
Click to expand...
Puzzled for a second. I thought you typed 'Mericans! Never seen loads of yanks around town.
 
Damocles said:
Mercians have lived in Manchester for thousands for years, therefore we should be independent from the UK despite not having a Mercian nation in 15 centuries yes?



It looks that way if you're an idiot, I agree.

But I'm not an idiot and I presume that a good portion of readers aren't because they actually read posts rather than make up what they want to say because it is visually similar.
Click to expand...

Apart from the fact that the analogy is ridiculous, it is also invalid because the Mercians are not being forcibly displaced. And I never stated a belief that the Palestinians should have a separate state. I said merely that they have inhabited that land for many hundreds of years. Some of them are descended from the Jews that inhabited the region over 2000 years ago. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons that many Arabs express resentment towards the Palestinians.

I quote you exactly, word-for-word: "This is also why when Palestine makes a historical claim on lands based on former nationhood, it's also bollocks."

First of all, Palestine does not exist. Therefore, it can make no historical claims. The claims are of the people known as Palestinians. And their claim to their homeland, from which they have been ethnically cleansed, is not bollocks.
 
Homar said:
If the OPCW had found definitive proof of their use, and the Syrian government were proved to be culpable, then your point would stand.
Click to expand...
Russia used its veto to stop the OPCW from assigning any blame after they blamed Assad last time they investigated. Their sole remit now is to simply state if an attack has taken place.

Let’s see what they are able to find after two weeks.
 
SWP's back said:
Russia used its veto to stop the OPCW from assigning any blame after they blamed Assad last time they investigated. Their sole remit now is to simply state if an attack has taken place.

Let’s see what they are able to find after two weeks.
Click to expand...

That is true, but the resolution proposed allowed for the UNSC to assign blame. This was rejected by the US. Sweden also proposed a similar resolution, which was also rejected by the US. And any investigation is better than none. Have you even considered a scenario where the OPCW finds that no chemical attack occurred? What then for the "free press" and international law?
 
SWP's back said:
Hence Russia vetoing it!! Ffs.
Click to expand...

Unless I misunderstand you, that is incorrect. The Russians proposed the resolution that would require the UNSC to assign blame, and they did not veto their own resolution. The resolution proposed by the Americans gave that power to the OPCW. It is this resolution that the Russians vetoed, citing lessons learned from past western intervention in Libya amongst other things (and to preempt any response on this, I don't claim that their reasoning makes any sense). To be clear, my view is adoption of the US-proposed resolution would have been preferable. However, since the Russians used their veto, the Russian-proposed resolution would have been preferable to none.
 
Homar said:
The US has used chemical weapons, specifically in Vietnam. And I tend to agree with your point on international law, as alluded to in the parenthesis of my response. Although at least one person here ignores the moral argument, focusing his argument entirely on the date which the prohibition of chemical weapons was enacted. However, if you look at this from a moral perspective, then you must consider the use of weapons that have not been banned, such as the use of depleted Uranium shells, which have resulted in many birth deformities in Iraq.

1) On killing people, the US is an expert on that.
2) On using chemical weapons, the US can count itself a member of that club.
3) On using unguided bombs, Syria does not have the luxury of modern precision guided bombs.
4) On shooting down civilian airliners, the US can also count itself a member of that club.

Specifically on (3), which is commonly presented in western media as proof of the Syrian government's targeting of civilians, it reminds me of the criticism of Algeria in their war of independence (anther incredibly barbaric war for the sole purpose of preserving French colonialist control). The then commander Ahmed Ben Bella was asked why he was hiding bombs in pushchairs to target the French, he responded that (and I am paraphrasing): If they will give us some of their helicopters and aeroplanes, then we will give them some of our pushchairs.
Click to expand...

Of course, I'm sure we have used chemical weapons in the past (in war, not on our own people) but that doesn't change what has happened here. If we dictated foreign policy based purely on the past then on that basis we should dissolve our military forces and just forget about it all.

Pointing out historical duplicity is fine but I don't really get the point you are trying to make given it has no relevance or point. In the end on the subject of this thread and given our involvement you can either criticize Russia/Syria or you can support them... Obviously there is our involvement via proxies but then you can equally criticize the other side who are doing the same thing... There is no right or wrong rather it just depends which side you view this from.

On this issue alone all we have done is take action to prevent someone from murdering his own citizens and I really don't think that it was a bad thing to do. If there is not a single new chemical weapons attack resulting in civilian deaths then it will of been proven to of been the right thing to do unless someone wishes that kind of thing on innocent people.

If the US uses a chemical weapon on its own people next week then I will be the first to call them out on it, I somehow doubt that it will happen (ever) though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top