Our government will of course tolerate the use of bombs and bullets to kill civilians because British companies profit from their use. One thing that I can’t get into my head is WHY would Assad use chemical weapons (and incur the wrath of the west) when he had basically win the war already (so I’m told) Can anyone who knows more about the conflict over there answer that for me ?
This bloke (the former commander of British forces in Iraq) was just about to make his thoughts known when Sky decided they didn't want us to hear them.....
I did see that on Twitter but thought it could of been edited.......very strange if it did happen like that. Assad is a nasty horrible **** for sure and most would welcome the toppling of his regime.....but he ain’t stupid, and that’s what I don’t get.
All nations have the right to defend themselves. But not to use weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, guns and bombs used deliberately to kill civilians as opposed to combatants are war crimes. UK, France and US are right not to stand by and see international rules on mass murder flouted, and instead take a humanitarian approach and target Syria's nerve gas capability facililties. Corbyn is a spineless red jellyfish!
So you admit that Israel is guilty of war crimes ? Or is it ok for that regime to shoot innocent kids ? As I say...it’s a funny old world.
So if one single civilian is killed by us dropping bombs then we are guilty of war crimes. What a silly woman May is for doing this. It will be the end of her thank God and hopefully we can welcome a more peaceful solution.
It's certainly not ok to shoot kids that are throwing stones, and yes, Israel should be investigated for war crimes if they sanction their soldiers that kill in cold blood. I found it disturbing to hear that an Israeli sniper was operating when these kids were throwing their stones
You're misguided, Bob, if you think this act of humanitarianism will result in May's downfall. It was a surgical strike and even Russia are backing off in the face of international approval.
Reading between the lines, I’m guessing Russia was warned when, where and how the strikes were gonna take place exactly so that there were no Russian casualties....
Humanitarianism!! By bombing more?? The most ridiculous use of a word in a sentence if there ever was one! Some people are hungry for death which in my opinion is very very sad
Like you, I certainly don’t like or support the military intervention at this time, but what are the options for a more peaceful solution, please?
Wasn’t it the Australian PM (I might be wrong) a few years back who said about the Syrian conflict, that there are no good guys in this war.....just bad guys against bad guys.....and as usual innocent civilians are being caught up in the middle. The press slagged him off at the time.
Of that I don't know mate but dropping bombs isn't the answer. It will just incite more revenge terrorist activity on our shores imo.
As sad and impotent as it sounds, I’m kinda in the Peter Hitchens camp (once more) with the opinion that the only thing we can really do is let them get on with it and try to build an influential relationship with the winners of some form.
IMO there is no chance of Russia intentionally getting into a war with NATO as it's a war that they can't win. A conventional war would result in a huge defeat for Russia and if the absolute worst happened a nuclear conflict would guarantee absolute (mutual) destruction. The biggest concern is an escalation via a mistake by either side resulting in war. Trump is a hugely embarrassing figure, but he will not want a war with Russia. Putin is a hard line Nationalist but he too wouldn't want a conflict with the West. I'm not sure whether we should have bombed Syria or not, but at some point a dictator killing his own people with chemical weapons needs to be stopped. May and co are damned if they do and damned if they don't imo.
