Sign petition to stop bombing Syria

And what this is funny. Petition haha? This is war. your opinion is worth nothing... you can just thank God for that you are here in the UK not in Syria

And what this is funny. Petition haha? This is war. your opinion is worth nothing... you can just thank God for that you are here in the UK not in Syria

What, so we should just leave Assad to slaughter his own people with chemical weapons?

So its perfectly okay for him to slaughter them with barrel bombs and other blunt instruments of war but you draw a distinction with chemical ones? A rather arbitrary line in the sand don't you think? Not to mention this wont stop him in any way, shape or form.

Have you read the statement Theresa May gave? She explicitly said that the aim of the strike is not regime change - like in Libya - but to wipe out stocks of chemical weapons.

And no, it's not an arbitrary line in the sand. There are clear international laws that forbid the use of chemical weapons, and there is clear evidence that this is exactly what Assad has done.

Furthermore, even if we should have intervened sooner, I think it's better late than never.

Your pacifism whatever the price is childish and impractical.

What has her statement got to do with anything? Come to think of it what does regime change have to do with it? I never mentioned it. I simply pointed out your laughable reason for the strike.
Er i'm not sure if you know anything about either Syria or Chemical weapons, least of all Syria's chemical weapons but the likelihood these petulant strikes would have "wiped out" any stocks worth a damn is deeply questionable even outright fascicle.

There are clear international laws which forbid many things, what is your point?
There isnt a shred of evidence Assad deployed them, a suspicion is not proof in any court of law.

You "think", oh very droll. What makes you think little Britain could have done anything but create another failed state like Iraq and Afghanistan?

Who said anything about pacifism? I'm just not as moronic as some people to think that a couple of missiles will at all make a difference.
But as a tit-for-tat response your hawkish opinions are ignorant and ill-founded on the matter.

What has her statement got to do with anything? Come to think of it what does regime change have to do with it? I never mentioned it. I simply pointed out your laughable reason for the strike.
Er i'm not sure if you know anything about either Syria or Chemical weapons, least of all Syria's chemical weapons but the likelihood these petulant strikes would have "wiped out" any stocks worth a damn is deeply questionable even outright fascicle.

There are clear international laws which forbid many things, what is your point?
There isnt a shred of evidence Assad deployed them, a suspicion is not proof in any court of law.

You "think", oh very droll. What makes you think little Britain could have done anything but create another failed state like Iraq and Afghanistan?

Who said anything about pacifism? I'm just not as moronic as some people to think that a couple of missiles will at all make a difference.
But as a tit-for-tat response your hawkish opinions are ignorant and ill-founded on the matter.

1) Regime change - You talked about the western intervention in Libya, which led to, in your words, destabilisation and "hooligans" running the country. To me, that sounds like you're talking about the regime change. Besides, if you're worried about Syria being 'destabilised', I think you're a little late. It is quite literally the least stable geopolitical area in the world right now.

2) I think strikes on Assad's chemical weapons stockpile and the lab where they are produced is a pretty good way of reducing his chemical weapons stash.

3) "What has her statement got to do with anything?"
Er, I don't know, she's only the f***ing Prime Minister after all.

4) International laws - There is an agreement in place that tries to ensure that governments will only be able to take overt action - men, tanks, guns, planes - things that can be seen and countered. It is supposed to limit the damage that can be done, literally and politically. Partly because it costs a lot of money to do, and partly because other countries can say clearly "We see you, you did this" - which in turn is supposed to limit the lengths governments will go to.

Chemical warfare is banned so that no government can kill thousands of people without warning, invisibly, repeatedly, in relatively cheap terror attacks.

If you are happy to live in a world where governments can develop the nastiest of chemical and biological weapons without international condemnation (including our own) then you have utterly missed the point about the almost sci fi / horror movie ramifications.

And regarding evidence, there is nobody else in Syria who could have perpetrated a chemical weapons attack.

Unless you prefer Russian propaganda and think that Britain was involved in staging the attack?

Er I spoke merely of the arbitrary nature of drawing a line at chemical weapons as opposed to the other ones? :s
I wonder if that has anything to do with America, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi et al. funnelling arms into the country to rival terror groups?

Given he had a few days notice to move everything, i rather doubt it.

So what? she's an irrelevence on the geo-political stage.

I feel ibliged to point out international laws dont seem to mean squat these days. Not to mention they especially mean nothing during times of war.

Chemical warfare is banned for several reasons but I dont forsee any of the reasons you just mentioned scoring particularly high on the list. Not to mention what you just described goes for almost every weapons sytem but chemical weapons. No one will see an artillery round coming after all and it is significantly cheaper than chemical weapons.

My desires are completely irrelevant to this. The fact of the matter is many governments possess chemical weapons [The US has the largest stocks] and my approval or disapproval [or anyones] is not going to change that. What I draw umbrage with though is the half assed response. Pardon the phrase but go hard or go home. This strike will make little to no material difference short of seriously pissing off Syria, Russia and Iran who are likely to respond in a rather unpalatable way. Note Iran can light a fire under Israel and Saudi [nominally key allies] and Russia can set eastern europe aflame. Pray tell how a petty little missile strike is worth that?



You do know the terrorists there have been caught using chemical weapons right?
either way that was not my point, my point was you dont break international law because you assume someone else has. You go through the correct channels and firing half a billion dollars worth of missiles in a fit of pique is not the way.

So British propoganda is okay but Russian bad? Got it...
But no i would just like some evidence [hearing serial liar politicians rant and rave is not proof] before Britains commits an act of war in a theatre we have no business in.

If you don't know, the UK has launched airstrikes against Syria alongside the US and France. This will not only escalate problems in the region, but increase tensions between countries with opposing views on Syria. I, by no means support any veiws, but looking at what happened in Libya more recently, I don't want it happening in Syria. This will destabilise the country, and end up with hooligans running it just like in Libya, where there is a slave trade going on.

I know many of you have exams coming, but this will only take a minute I swear.

https://humanity-inclusion.org.uk/en/stop-bombing-civilians-sign-the-petition

What, so we should just leave Assad to slaughter his own people with chemical weapons?

I mean do we really care about these Syrians? The general attitude de jour of many western countries seeking to prevent Syrians from settling I think gives an indication of how much solicitousness the general population displays towards thier fate.

If you don't know, the UK has launched airstrikes against Syria alongside the US and France. This will not only escalate problems in the region, but increase tensions between countries with opposing views on Syria. I, by no means support any veiws, but looking at what happened in Libya more recently, I don't want it happening in Syria. This will destabilise the country, and end up with hooligans running it just like in Libya, where there is a slave trade going on.

I know many of you have exams coming, but this will only take a minute I swear.

https://humanity-inclusion.org.uk/en/stop-bombing-civilians-sign-the-petition

Have you read the statement Theresa May gave? She explicitly said that the aim of the strike is not regime change - like in Libya - but to wipe out stocks of chemical weapons.

And no, it's not an arbitrary line in the sand. There are clear international laws that forbid the use of chemical weapons, and there is clear evidence that this is exactly what Assad has done.

Furthermore, even if we should have intervened sooner, I think it's better late than never.


Your pacifism whatever the price is childish and impractical.