Syria (merged)

[MeatnSpudsMCFC]

Syria/US half half scarves. The world is safe.

 

[Len Rum]

Get the feeling that Milliband is playing party politics even though I agree we shouldn't get involved

Only Cameron could make Milliband look like a hero. He recalls Parliament to back his macho air strike motion without assessing his chances of winning , then he realises he's miscalculated and waters down the motion, and then he loses the watered down motion! This is his Suez moment and he should resign.

 

[stonerblue]

As Skashion so eloquently keeps trying to point out, U.S and U.K. military intervention would see a massive escalation in violence. Every 'Jihadist' in the world will want to fight against them.

Why would every Jihadist fight against them? The Jihadists in Syria are fighting against Assad (your getting your groups mixed up)

We can argue about none intervention till the cows come home, but it looks like it is going to happen, I think the thinking is that any intervention may well hasten the end to the civil war and thus prevent it getting any worse, sure there is the risk that it may escalate, but maybe just maybe Governments don't want Lebanon part 2 right on the doorstep of Europe and the Middle East, but a conflict that would be much worse

I am not really into making dire predictions about the outcome, because we don't really know what is going to happen, perhaps it might be better to wait and see how it all turns out, and if the end result sees a quicker end to the civil war it will be a good thing.

Until the cavalry turn up, then the guns will be pointed at the invaders.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Get the feeling that Milliband is playing party politics even though I agree we shouldn't get involved

Only Cameron could make Milliband look like a hero. He recalls Parliament to back his macho air strike motion without assessing his chances of winning , then he realises he's miscalculated and waters down the motion, and then he loses the watered down motion! This is his Suez moment and he should resign.

I thought Milliband had said he would back him then pulled out. Was very calculated<br /><br />-- 29 Aug 2013, 23:25 --<br /><br />

I await the next false flag.

Wouldn't call this one a false flag in fact by very defintiton of false flag this didn't even become a flag that could be false

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Milliband didn't defeat the govt. their own MPs and coalition partners did.

 

[mat]

FFS media turning it into a "MP's deserting the people of syria" Didn't take long for Cameron to call his mate rupert...

 

[woodieMCFC]

Just seen footage of people in Syria with 50% burns from weapons containing either napalm or thermite on the BBC News. Fucking shocking what's going on over there! I know our government have voted to not get involved and I can only persume Iraq is fresh in their minds and/or playing party politics.

Feel sorry for the civilians in Syria.

 

[Ducado]

FFS media turning it into a "MP's deserting the people of syria" Didn't take long for Cameron to call his mate rupert...

It's the truth

 

[metalblue]

Those guidelines are enshrined in international humanitarian law. The geneva convention was always designed as self regulating within symmetric conflicts (you deliberately bomb my hospital I'll bomb yours), however asymmetric conflicts such as Syria naturally remove this concept of reciprocity. Indeed it has been considered that the weaker combatants would more likely use tactics outside law due to this military disadvantage that they should have less obligations placed upon their compliance. What we have here is the military superior side (potentially as yet to be proven) using tactics (CW) that violate convention and where the concept of necessity would not stand, in that case reciprocity can only be executed by an external power of equal or greater force. This is very different situation to conflicts where both sides have butchered one anothers civilians and the concept of reciprocity exists, however unpalatable.

You still haven't explained why lives taken by chemical warfare are more important, and you won't because you can't.

Your proposed solution as well, is to weaken Assad, without, you said, handing the upper hand to the rebels, thus returning us closer to stalemate. This will prolong the conflict and result in more lives being taken. Undoubtedly.

Therefore, I say, not only do you not have a justification for air or missile strikes, you have no justification for what they might achieve. Your proposed response to 335 deaths by gas is to ensure many many more will die by making the conflict last even longer? Ah, never mind, I'm sure the deaths will be highly conventional. Knives, bullets, fire, explosions. As long as there's no fucking gas it's all gravy.

At no point did I say a life taken by chemical weapon was more important, I have simply given the rationale as to why it is classed as outside the expected humanitarian norms of conflict.

 

[Skashion]

Lets hope that is the best outcome......if people are being gased and maimed this time next year and were still turning a blind eye I'm not sure I will accept that, if as Skashion predicted Assad wins quickly and we signs of peace then all is well

Be under no illusion that this means the air and missile strikes will not go ahead though. They will. I hope though that the blood is now off our hands and Cameron accepts the authority of the British Parliament.

-- Fri Aug 30, 2013 7:44 am --

FFS media turning it into a "MP's deserting the people of syria" Didn't take long for Cameron to call his mate rupert...

It's the truth

It bloody well isn't. Why do you think that it is only your view that gives a shit about the Syrian people? Why can't others have reached the opinion that intervention will not lead to fewer lives being lost?<br /><br />-- Fri Aug 30, 2013 7:46 am --<br /><br />

At no point did I say a life taken by chemical weapon was more important, I have simply given the rationale as to why it is classed as outside the expected humanitarian norms of conflict.

Well, forgive me, but I don't see what's humanitarian about valuing a life taken by gas than one taken by bullets, to me, they're both the same.

 

[Ducado]

Lets hope that is the best outcome......if people are being gased and maimed this time next year and were still turning a blind eye I'm not sure I will accept that, if as Skashion predicted Assad wins quickly and we signs of peace then all is well

Be under no illusion that this means the air and missile strikes will not go ahead though. They will. I hope though that the blood is now off our hands and Cameron accepts the authority of the British Parliament.

-- Fri Aug 30, 2013 7:44 am --

FFS media turning it into a "MP's deserting the people of syria" Didn't take long for Cameron to call his mate rupert...

It's the truth

It bloody well isn't. Why do you think that it is only your view that gives a shit about the Syrian people? Why can't others have reached the opinion that intervention will not lead to fewer lives being lost?

-- Fri Aug 30, 2013 7:46 am --

At no point did I say a life taken by chemical weapon was more important, I have simply given the rationale as to why it is classed as outside the expected humanitarian norms of conflict.

Well, forgive me, but I don't see what's humanitarian about valuing a life taken by gas than one taken by bullets, to me, they're both the same.

Because just like you I am allowed an opinion

 

[Skashion]

Because just like you I am allowed an opinion

So, I can just say you've deserted the Syrian people then and it's all happy families. Grow up you child.

 

[Jumanji]

Those guidelines are enshrined in international humanitarian law. The geneva convention was always designed as self regulating within symmetric conflicts (you deliberately bomb my hospital I'll bomb yours), however asymmetric conflicts such as Syria naturally remove this concept of reciprocity. Indeed it has been considered that the weaker combatants would more likely use tactics outside law due to this military disadvantage that they should have less obligations placed upon their compliance. What we have here is the military superior side (potentially as yet to be proven) using tactics (CW) that violate convention and where the concept of necessity would not stand, in that case reciprocity can only be executed by an external power of equal or greater force. This is very different situation to conflicts where both sides have butchered one anothers civilians and the concept of reciprocity exists, however unpalatable.

You still haven't explained why lives taken by chemical warfare are more important, and you won't because you can't.

Your proposed solution as well, is to weaken Assad, without, you said, handing the upper hand to the rebels, thus returning us closer to stalemate. This will prolong the conflict and result in more lives being taken. Undoubtedly.

Therefore, I say, not only do you not have a justification for air or missile strikes, you have no justification for what they might achieve. Your proposed response to 335 deaths by gas is to ensure many many more will die by making the conflict last even longer? Ah, never mind, I'm sure the deaths will be highly conventional. Knives, bullets, fire, explosions. As long as there's no fucking gas it's all gravy.

At no point did I say a life taken by chemical weapon was more important, I have simply given the rationale as to why it is classed as outside the expected humanitarian norms of conflict.

Humanitarian & conflict in the same sentence?

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

You still haven't explained why lives taken by chemical warfare are more important, and you won't because you can't.

Your proposed solution as well, is to weaken Assad, without, you said, handing the upper hand to the rebels, thus returning us closer to stalemate. This will prolong the conflict and result in more lives being taken. Undoubtedly.

Therefore, I say, not only do you not have a justification for air or missile strikes, you have no justification for what they might achieve. Your proposed response to 335 deaths by gas is to ensure many many more will die by making the conflict last even longer? Ah, never mind, I'm sure the deaths will be highly conventional. Knives, bullets, fire, explosions. As long as there's no fucking gas it's all gravy.

At no point did I say a life taken by chemical weapon was more important, I have simply given the rationale as to why it is classed as outside the expected humanitarian norms of conflict.

Humanitarian & conflict in the same sentence?

Its quite easy really. Loads of ways of getting those 2 words in to the same sentence<br /><br />-- 30 Aug 2013, 07:37 --<br /><br />

Lets hope that is the best outcome......if people are being gased and maimed this time next year and were still turning a blind eye I'm not sure I will accept that, if as Skashion predicted Assad wins quickly and we signs of peace then all is well

The civil war started back in April 2011. He is hardly picking up the pace either. Add to that Al Qaeda are involved and what we have is 100 years war

 

[metalblue]

At no point did I say a life taken by chemical weapon was more important, I have simply given the rationale as to why it is classed as outside the expected humanitarian norms of conflict.

Well, forgive me, but I don't see what's humanitarian about valuing a life taken by gas than one taken by bullets, to me, they're both the same.

It's not about valuing one method of death over another but rather the rationale of reciprocity and its place in enforcing humanitarian norms as the reasoning behind why we should get involved now.

These articles examine the concepts and explain it so much better than I if anyone is interested

http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc_864_geiss.pdf

http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc-873-paulus-vashakmadze.pdf

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1427437

 

[Jumanji]

At no point did I say a life taken by chemical weapon was more important, I have simply given the rationale as to why it is classed as outside the expected humanitarian norms of conflict.

Humanitarian & conflict in the same sentence?

Its quite easy really. Loads of ways of getting those 2 words in to the same sentencer

Sure, something like blah blah blah humanitarian effort to help victims of the conflict, for example.

But that's not really what I meant though.

Humanitarian norms of conflict do not exist, in my humble opinion. Human on human conflict is atrocious.

 

[metalblue]

Humanitarian & conflict in the same sentence?

Its quite easy really. Loads of ways of getting those 2 words in to the same sentencer

Sure, something like blah blah blah huminatirian effort to help victims of the conflict, for example.

But that's not really what I meant though.

Humanitarian norms of conflict do not exist, in my humble opinion. Human on human conflict is atrocious.

Of course they exist even if those norms were to rape every woman and shoot every boy over the age of 10.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Humanitarian & conflict in the same sentence?

Its quite easy really. Loads of ways of getting those 2 words in to the same sentencer

Sure, something like blah blah blah huminatirian effort to help victims of the conflict, for example.

But that's not really what I meant though.

Humanitarian norms of conflict do not exist, in my humble opinion. Human on human conflict is atrocious.

If I ever meet someone that disagrees with your last statement I will punch them in the nose

 

[Skashion]

It's not about valuing one method of death over another but rather the rationale of reciprocity and its place in enforcing humanitarian norms as the reasoning behind why we should get involved now.

These articles examine the concepts and explain it so much better than I if anyone is interested

http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc_864_geiss.pdf

http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc-873-paulus-vashakmadze.pdf

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1427437

Those articles, cannot, and never will, explain why it is humanitarian to ignore Darfur, Rwanda and 100,000 deaths in Syria, but give a shit about 335 deaths caused by gas. No article or words ever will. A death is a death. It means something or it doesn't.

 

[metalblue]

It's not about valuing one method of death over another but rather the rationale of reciprocity and its place in enforcing humanitarian norms as the reasoning behind why we should get involved now.

These articles examine the concepts and explain it so much better than I if anyone is interested

http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc_864_geiss.pdf

http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc-873-paulus-vashakmadze.pdf

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1427437

Those articles, cannot, and never will, explain why it is humanitarian to ignore Darfur, Rwanda and 100,000 deaths in Syria, but give a shit about 335 deaths caused by gas. No article or words ever will. A death is a death. It means something or it doesn't.

That is a very black and white view of the world. So what are you advocating? we either get involved at the first death in every external conflict or never get involved no matter what happens?