11 6

Anyone have anything to say about our amazing prime minister Thresa May, who decided to bomb Syria and managed to get 30 out of 100 bombs on targets mostly already vacated. I think the Brits have enough trouble already with our overseas relationships and home problems.

jacpod 8 Apr 15

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Most of these comments are exactly what Putin (and Assad) rely on.
They are dictators, meaning they can push ahead without any sort of backlash from their own populations, in secure in the knowledge that western nations, fettered by all sorts of requirements to debate and vote, cannot take decisive, retaliatory action. Look at the invasion and annexation of the Crimea, just for starters. How many time has a chemical weapon attack taken place in Syria? Very, very, many!
Every time, there has been a UN debate, and a motion deploring the action and that is it.
Even in the hypothetical case that all parties were in agreement, there would need to be a debate, and every single delegate would insist on having their say, so that by the time the vote had been passed, the entire affair is either so long past that it is too late to do anything, or the perpetrators have had time to prepare for whatever action is decided.
THAT IS ONE OF THE WEAKNESSES OF THE UK!! Every person who becomes an apologist, or demands 100% proof rather than accepting 90% certainty, encourages rogue states to continue and then bald facedly deny their actions, or even outrageously claim that Britain itself arranged it.
As for 30 out of 100 bombs on target - where on earth did you dig that up? Farcebook?


Just what syrian people need . More deaths. u s and u think are collectively psychopathic


Assuming the Syrian government did attack its people using chemical weapons, then it is the duty all other countries to step in and prevent by force any further attacks of this nature by any government upon its people. These rules originally came in with the league of Nations, and taken on by the United Nations. This is the cover in the event of a member of the permanent Security Council vetoing humanitarian support by the United Nations. And so, the countries which have bombed Syrian governmental are legally obliged to do so. The targets chosen of those which will provide a demonstration of firepower.
This time despite strong words from the Kremlin, Russia chose to stand off with its anti-aircraft assets for fear of the easy and imminent destruction by overwhelming American firepower.
The Kremlin could also demonstrate a degree of behind-the-scenes support for the United Nations proposals which it had publicly vetoed. This way Russia can attempt to avoid a direct conflict United States and the United Nations whilst still appearing strong in front of people.
Perhaps the big question is, what should be done about the government and leadership of Syria once they have gained victory over the rebels. And help can peace be rebuilt in the Middle East following this long and disastrous civil war.
The people that suffer most of the ordinary people of Syria have had to put up with the violence of the neighbours the government and the outside world. Torn apart by religious divides within Islam together with petty tribal rivalries that had remained hidden within their state from before the Ottoman Empire.
Let us hope that this debacle can finish as peacefully as possible, without spilling into a world war.

You have a valid point but what a lot of people are angry about is that proof has not been forthcoming . Plus an attack was authorised without a parliamentary vote . When things are done this way and in the early hours of the morning it raises more questions and suspicions than it answers

I'm still trying to understand why people get into such a fuss over chemical and biological weapons. There are plenty of governments around the world shooting citizens in job lots, and very few people seem to get worked up over them. Dead is dead, and bullet wounds can also cause long, agonizing deaths.

Proof is the key factor. Given the type of gas, it could have been caused by accident - many domestic cleaning chemicals will produce that gas. Did the rebels release the gas to curry favour with the international community? At the moment we just don't know. However, politics are bigger than the individual. What is scary, is people not as smart as me are making decisions for me. Sometimes a decision needs to be made behind closed doors, other times by parliament. This time it should have been the later. However, given the feeble state of Mrs Mays strong and stable government. Cameron failed before, so she could not risk it and look weaker.

@SimonMorgan1 The attacks were in the early hours of the morning so as to ensure minimum casualties - merely the destruction of evil facilities. So why would one wish to question the time?

@Petter I didn't think if that. What I was thinking was the general public in the UK being asleep so we couldn't make a fuss about it until it was to late.

@SimonMorgan1 The biggest force was American, and US citizens were watching peak time TV. (A conspiracy theorist would now claim it was to boost ratings.)
I always tend to look at the broad picture, not just from narrow perspectives. ...and I also try to think of the broader background and tactics to events.
Putin (who, remember, rose from the ranks of the Russian secret police) is a canny politician and tactician. He invaded and annexed the Crimea because he calculated he could get away with it - and he was right. By the time the rest of the world had debated and argued and allowed every two-bit state to have its say, it was too late! That's a major weakness of trying to achieve a consensus amongst too many people or states, which he knew.
A similar tactic is being applied in Syria.

Just back from college, and covered this in Politics. What fun.


My views are widely expressed on that issue here "Out Of The Illusion "


Shes a fucking idiot

sadly too true and a dangerous idiot at thtat !

jeremy wouldn't have done that effing ukip have blood on their hands


And she did not even think too consult Parliament!

Coldo Level 8 Apr 15, 2018

You should be more prone to judge Assad and Putin the what they have done. The Western world had to do something, even if it was just symbolic.

You have the evidence we're all waiting on!?! Please do share! The rest of the world wants to know!

you'd better start reading . the u s funded first the street protests . protesters were paid 50 euros . then funded the arms for the rebels combined with the arms gained from the disintegration of iraq to i s i l. all putin wants is to keep his last friendly port on the med. stop effing killing people


I can't...I just cannot even bear this illegal action (not debated in Parliament). I cannot look at any more images of broken or dead children. I cannot be part of a country who condones this anymore. My heart aches...


I'm living in Central tRumplandia. My sympathies.


This is one of those times (coming way too frequently) that my desire to stay sane is hampering my desire and efforts to stay well informed.

I absolutely 100% agree!


Unelected emperor may bypassing democracy so she can get a few votes . The same person who won't find the NHS or police so she can spend millions on bombs . That what your asking?

I work for the NHS (Part of the time)...don't even get me started

She was elected..just. And propped up by the DUP.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:58063
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.