jagfox Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 He's been banned.^^^ probably a conspiracy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin_Hood Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 Saudi Arabia never trusted these people ever. Have a look at this, which I have found. Syrian rebels take responsibility for the chemical attack admitting the weapons were provided by the Saudis. Syrian rebels admitted in an interview with Dale Gavlak, a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press and Mint Press News, that they were responsible for last week’s chemical attack. “From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” he writes in the article. The rebels noted it was a result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them. “My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta. As Gavlak reports, Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels died in a weapons storage tunnel. The father stated the weapons were provided to rebel forces by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, describing them as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.” “They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K’. “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.” “When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution. Gavlak also refers to an article in the UK’s Daily Telegraph about secret Russian-Saudi talks stating that Prince Bandar threatened Russian President Vladimir Putin with terror attacks at next year’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if Russia doesn’t agree to change its stance on Syria. “Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord,” the article stated. “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” Saudi Prince allegedly told Vladimir Putin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain kirk Posted August 30, 2013 Author Share Posted August 30, 2013 Gorgeous George sets them straight .. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fNoVwHjRcws Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 For me this is a massively complex issue (shock horror as P&B posters gravitate to the extremes) which I'm still not sure about. My instinct says we should stay out but there are some very convincing arguments for limited intervention. I really despise the political posturing in the Commons last night when surely party politics should have nothing to do with the debate (I know, I know, such a utopia could never exist). Milliband looked a tad out of his depth I thought. This article by Robert Fisk helped sway me: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iran-not-syria-is-the-wests-real-target-8789506.html And also the interview of Sir Richard Dannatt on the BBC which I can't find a link to. He was very much against any military action - and I reckon he's a pretty decent source on such matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 I thought Syrians were just in Dr Who.....who is it I'm thinking off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 I thought Syrians were just in Dr Who.....who is it I'm thinking off? Celtic drawing ac Milan ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain kirk Posted August 30, 2013 Author Share Posted August 30, 2013 For me this is a massively complex issue (shock horror as P&B posters gravitate to the extremes) which I'm still not sure about. My instinct says we should stay out but there are some very convincing arguments for limited intervention. I really despise the political posturing in the Commons last night when surely party politics should have nothing to do with the debate (I know, I know, such a utopia could never exist). Milliband looked a tad out of his depth I thought. This article by Robert Fisk helped sway me: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iran-not-syria-is-the-wests-real-target-8789506.html And also the interview of Sir Richard Dannatt on the BBC which I can't find a link to. He was very much against any military action - and I reckon he's a pretty decent source on such matters. There is no such thing as limited intervention in this scenario, this is a multi hornests nest of sectarian fire fuk, to which theyre are no distinguishing features betwixt the good guys and the bad guys . As so pointedly made in the commons ,, intervene to who's behest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 Celtic drawing ac Milan ? Neither would be good Dr Who baddies. Syrians work, that's what confused me. Latvians would work. Khazaks, Uzbeks etc etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 There is no such thing as limited intervention in this scenario, this is a multi hornests nest of sectarian fire fuk, to which theyre are no distinguishing features betwixt the good guys and the bad guys . As so pointedly made in the commons ,, intervene to who's behest? Pretty much sums it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyerTon Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Yanks snub Britain. Describe French as their 'oldest ally' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2407511/Syria-vote-After-Camerons-Commons-humiliation-US-snubs-Britain-gets-cosy-France.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Nomad Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Nomad Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny van Axeldongen Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 The "Special Relationship" = load of bollocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 The American perspective: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/30/government-assessment-syrian-government-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21 Sounds more convincing than Blair's dodgy dossier. But doesn't justify killing people just to put Assad on the naughty step. If they could destroy the Sarin stocks, fine. But they can't, at least not without risking thousands of "collateral" civilian deaths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagfox Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Special in that we get fucked up the arse thrown scraps and are expected to deal with it? I'm sure Americans have killed more British Citizens than the Syrians have ever done in a combat situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wirez Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Maybe some of our MP's have woken up to the fact we are a small country and should not be acting as the policeman for the world. It is time that countries in that area sorted their own mess out for a change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbornbairn Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Its a rag - equivalent of the Sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blanco Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 The American perspective: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/30/government-assessment-syrian-government-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21 Sounds more convincing than Blair's dodgy dossier. But doesn't justify killing people just to put Assad on the naughty step. If they could destroy the Sarin stocks, fine. But they can't, at least not without risking thousands of "collateral" civilian deaths. Surely airstrikes aiming to destroy chemical weapon stockpiles will have the same effect of detonating those same weapons anyway. The chemicals will obviously be released into the atmosphere after an airstrike and have the very effect that the syrians are supposed to be protected from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny van Axeldongen Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 US claim on Syria chemical attack 'nonsense' - Putin Russian President Vladimir Putin has dismissed US claims that Syria's regime used chemical weapons, describing them as "utter nonsense". Mr Putin challenged Washington to present the evidence behind its claims to the United Nations Security Council. US President Barack Obama has said he is considering military action against Syria based on intelligence reports. The Russia leader's remarks came after UN chemical weapons inspectors ended their visit to Syria. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23911833 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.