Fao scott

[dave88 1,565]

27 minutes ago, Greyman said:

When Adolf hitler decided to take Germany to war there was a conversation between hitler and one of his generals about getting the German publics support as no one there really had an appetite for war ,what they came up with was this, first you create fear of a common enemy, in ww2 Poland done it for the Germans we are using Russia, next you brand anyone that disagrees with you as unpatriotic/ traitor, follow this with blaming them for an attack on home soil, I believe in Germany it was an explosion here a chemical attack and while the people are reeling in fake anger, they will agree to anything, like invading half of Europe before realising Adolf was off his trolley,  yet here we are nearly a 100 years on following the same MO and falling for the same scam, and when the dust settles history will blame trump and call him a madman and the circle will start to revolve again, and when it does come round again there will be some angry little jock jumping up and down screaming for action as it seems some people just never learn from previous mistakes ????

You seem so determined to right this whole thing off as bullshit and blame the government mate whilst ignoring the possibility that Russia might actually be guilty

[Greyman 25,284]

17 minutes ago, dave88 said:

You seem so determined to right this whole thing off as bullshit and blame the government mate whilst ignoring the possibility that Russia might actually be guilty

I don't care if they poisoned a traitor, but I care that it will be my kids being called up to fight another war caused by politicians and giving there lives, did,nt they call the Great War the war to end all wars, well it failed and when the next government decide to coheres there populations to take up arms and fight a false war, it will be the same people hiding in an air conditioned bunker while the sheeple load there kids up to send them off to die, so I don't care  which government it is I just think that after all the f**k ups we have made in the name of war we should have learnt by now that it's not the answer, is Iraq any better since we sorted it? Or Afghanistan and Libya, there are two more country,s the west need to destabilise one is Syria the other is Iran and they will have completed what Blair set out to do all those years ago when he told us all that sadam had chemical weapons,  is it any wonder I,m a little suspicious of ours and all other governments 

[Greyman 25,284]

45 minutes ago, scothunter said:

Oh f**k off you commie loving loony. Oh and don't try to give me a history lesson on nazi Germany lol

I think that was covered in the fourth line, brand anyone that disagrees unpatriotic/traitor, but they,ll have to be up early to get one over on you eh scottty, ✌️

[scothunter 12,609]

Were all suspicious and you're not telling us anything we don't already know. I actually agree with you past few wars have been for others gains with little or no thought for innocent people. 

But Wars are a nasty business. Also Chamberlain was very keen on peace and appeasement. Never done any good.

You can't just let other nations murder folk on our street's with chemical shit that can kill it's citizens. 

I also agree bullet in a traitors head or knife in the gut. Well that's just the risk you run.

Now to Syria chemical attacks on innocent folk. Surely as a species and a collective we should confront those actions. If unchecked what's next. 

[Greyman 25,284]

57 minutes ago, scothunter said:

Were all suspicious and you're not telling us anything we don't already know. I actually agree with you past few wars have been for others gains with little or no thought for innocent people. 

But Wars are a nasty business. Also Chamberlain was very keen on peace and appeasement. Never done any good.

You can't just let other nations murder folk on our street's with chemical shit that can kill it's citizens. 

I also agree bullet in a traitors head or knife in the gut. Well that's just the risk you run.

Now to Syria chemical attacks on innocent folk. Surely as a species and a collective we should confront those actions. If unchecked what's next. 

If proven, not just on the say so of a few politicians, last month I think the Russians discovered several chemical weapons stash,s in Syria held by militants, so who,s to say a conventional bomb did,nt hit one of those, but just like in the skriple case, everyone is fired up and calling for retaliation before seeing any evidence and that's just what the politicians want mass hatred, it gives them the green light to do as they please, even start ww3 , I think if you were accused of a crime you,d expect your trial before being hung  and that's all I,m asking before people start laying down there lives 

[scothunter 12,609]

Yea cause it's all based in a few politicians and you accuse others of not believing stuff you post on a lot less evidence. 

[WILF 44,332]

What they need to do is send youth and social workers to Syria, invest billions in diversity schemes, make sure every c**t has a history month and arrest anyone who bad mouths the rebels........

That will stop the killing........if its good enough for London then its good enough for anywhere !! 

 

40 people die in Syria and we send 98 zillion quids worth of hardware and start WW3 !

 

50 people die in London and they send David Lammy and Chucka Amuna !!

 

You honestly couldn’t make it up !!.......nah, when the government start behaving seriously then I may take them seriously until then they are full of shit ! 

Greyman is spot on, it’s bollocks.

Edited April 13, 2018 by WILF

[Greyman 25,284]

15 hours ago, scothunter said:

Yea cause it's all based in a few politicians and you accuse others of not believing stuff you post on a lot less evidence. 

I think ww3 is slightly more harmful to the world than an old bloke wandering round the countryside looking for signs there is a small population of large cats wandering around the country, and to try and make a connection shows you are slightly removed from reality, this is not call of duty black ops this is real life and when people die they don't   respawn and carry on, your making it very easy to see how you may get the wool pulled over your eyes mate, i have a child on a warship heading that way, what's your sacrifice going to be if the shit hits the fan ????? 

[Born Hunter 17,639]

18 hours ago, Greyman said:

If proven, not just on the say so of a few politicians, last month I think the Russians discovered several chemical weapons stash,s in Syria held by militants, so who,s to say a conventional bomb did,nt hit one of those, but just like in the skriple case, everyone is fired up and calling for retaliation before seeing any evidence and that's just what the politicians want mass hatred, it gives them the green light to do as they please, even start ww3 , I think if you were accused of a crime you,d expect your trial before being hung  and that's all I,m asking before people start laying down there lives 

There's been a published investigation by the UN (agreed to by ALL security council members) and the OPCW concluding that Assad as well as rebel and jihadi groups have used chemical weapons in the civil war, after the Syrian government allegedly got rid of them all. Obviously the investigation into who was responsible for this most recent attack is yet to be concluded and likely won't be for some time, if at all.

There's a few questions here that everyone seems to have different answers to,

Does the international community, or at least our own country, have an obligation to deal with such crimes?

If yes, is the action proposed likely to be effective?

What's the consequences of not acting? (I think this question is the deepest and most complex, there's more at play here than oil pipelines or killing civilians).

[C556 351]

It might have been Assad that ordered the chemical attack, but don't you find it very suspicious that he would have done it, then, just before a small pocket of jihadists surrendered that were going to be defeated anyway? This is a turning point in the war. With the east of Damascus cleared of jihadists, it'll free up tens of thousands of Syrian Army troops, and will more or less guarantee victory over the remaining jihadists areas.

That is unless otherwise parties get involved in the war. The group that reported the chemical attack is known as the White Helmets, they seem to be the first on scene whenever there's a chemical attack or hospital bombed, and are the first to report it to the media. The group has links to Al Qaeda and have been known to stage bomb scenes to get support for the jihadists. All very convenient during a turning point in the war, as the jihadists appear to have gained the most from the attack by getting a potential western airforce, and Assad has been further vilified and lost more support.

After the jihadists surrendered, instead of Assad slaughtering them, they were bussed out to safe zones along with their Kalashnikovs, and locals cheered the incoming Syrian Army soldiers. I'm not asking you to believe what I'm saying, just keep an open mind as to the sources the media are using 'to get a good story'.

[Greyman 25,284]

1 hour ago, Born Hunter said:

There's been a published investigation by the UN (agreed to by ALL security council members) and the OPCW concluding that Assad as well as rebel and jihadi groups have used chemical weapons in the civil war, after the Syrian government allegedly got rid of them all. Obviously the investigation into who was responsible for this most recent attack is yet to be concluded and likely won't be for some time, if at all.

There's a few questions here that everyone seems to have different answers to,

Does the international community, or at least our own country, have an obligation to deal with such crimes?

If yes, is the action proposed likely to be effective?

What's the consequences of not acting? (I think this question is the deepest and most complex, there's more at play here than oil pipelines or killing civilians).

 it don't seem like ten minutes ago my daughter spent months on a ship moored off Syria while the Un and other bodies removed all the chemical weapons from The Assad regime, she was there for around 6month, so did we not do the job or has our governments provided him with more?, simular to the Americans selling chemical weapons to sadam so he could gas the Kurds, then us using it as an excuse to invade Iraq, I don't no what the consequence of not acting is but if you look at the consequences of us acting, all its achieved is mass imagration and puppet governments being formed in country's that are now significantly worse than when we started and once we overthrow Assad and  Rohani the entire region will be completely destabilised and our lot will become significantly worse, everyone on here moans about Muslims and immigrants but  as soon as the bombs start dropping we will have another billion rafts heading across the med for our shores, and that's if no one hits the big button it's all about regime change and nothing else which is why I don't  think it's worth more good kids giving there life's over sorry, the money spent on hardware to drop in the desert over the last 15 years could have created the best nhs and police force in the world, instead of that they are both crumbling while the country drowns in the dregs of the Arab world arriving on our shores because we,ve bombed them out, it's a total mess and more bombing is about to make things a whole lot worse 

[C556 351]

Remember the media often, but not always has it's own agenda it likes to set. Closer to home just look at the coverage of subjects such as Brexit, Trump, the EU, and illegal immigration.

Edited April 13, 2018 by C556

[Born Hunter 17,639]

32 minutes ago, Greyman said:

 it don't seem like ten minutes ago my daughter spent months on a ship moored off Syria while the Un and other bodies removed all the chemical weapons from The Assad regime, she was there for around 6month, so did we not do the job or has our governments provided him with more?

All they knew of. That doesn't stop them making more either which there is intelligence to suggest I believe.

Also, massive assumption that we re-supplied the Syrian government. I think the Russians and Assad might be shouting that out loud to the world if there was anything in it.

32 minutes ago, Greyman said:

I don't no what the consequence of not acting is but if you look at the consequences of us acting, all its achieved is mass imagration and puppet governments being formed in country's that are now significantly worse than when we started and once we overthrow Assad and  Rohani the entire region will be completely destabilised and our lot will become significantly worse, everyone on here moans about Muslims and immigrants but  as soon as the bombs start dropping we will have another billion rafts heading across the med for our shores, and that's if no one hits the big button it's all about regime change and nothing else which is why I don't  think it's worth more good kids giving there life's over sorry, the money spent on hardware to drop in the desert over the last 15 years could have created the best nhs and police force in the world, instead of that they are both crumbling while the country drowns in the dregs of the Arab world arriving on our shores because we,ve bombed them out, it's a total mess and more bombing is about to make things a whole lot worse 

Though that is all fair enough I think it's being a bit selective. These Arab rebellions were going to happen no matter what, despite what all the non interventionists think. The civil war in Syria wasn't caused by our f**k up in Iraq and the growth of ISIS, though of course that hasn't helped shit all. The 5 million displaced Syrians and the wave of 'refugees' into Europe is a result of this war dragging on, so you could easily argue that that is the consequence of not stamping on these problems. But that's only part of it, even if you don't agree with taking a side in this civil war (hard to argue against as the Bush doctrine of overthrowing dictators evidently has massive flaws) the question of 'consequences of inaction' still apply to the use of chemical weapons.

If it's just accepted that chemical weapons can be used then it'll lead to an arms race and further use.

If it's just accepted that Russia can do what the f**k they like so long as they aren't directly attacking us then every other country will do the same. China will build islands in strategic locations to project power over trade routes. Iran can just shut the straight of Hormuz whenever they feel like it. Russia can annex eastern Europe because the resident ethnic Russians want them too.

This is a f***ing huge game of power plays and not playing isn't an option. Every single geopolitical issue in history is watched by the players and bystanders to assess strengths and weaknesses for future strategy.

Edited April 13, 2018 by Born Hunter