A couple of good tweets highlighted by the Guardian live blog:
anne mcelvoy @annemcelvoy - If both Obama and JIC evidence on Syrian gassing isn't enough for Labour, can Ed Mil tell us what might suffice?
What 'evidence'?
So far all we have seen is a letter from the JIC saying a chemical attack occurred (which no one seriously doubts) and a claim that they think it must have been the Assad regime because they don't believe the rebels have the capability. Maybe they should try to find out if the rebels (who are backed by Saudi Arabia and so are not exactly resorting to throwing stones to win the war) do actually have the capability.
They also cite 14 previous occasions when they claim the Assad regime used chemical weapons. But even though they use this as a supporting argument for their claims, they have presented no evidence previously that the Assad regime was responsible for the earlier attacks.
More to the point if the Assad regime carried out these previous chemical attacks and we have the evidence to support that claim, why is it that this attack is the one that has triggered the war mongers and not the previous 14 occasions?
"Miliband’s embarrassing performance today does not bode well for Britain if he becomes prime minister. He simply doesn’t come across as someone who projects clear leadership or commands the attention of his audience. His knowledge of the subject matter at hand appeared wafer-thin. If this is what he is like in opposition, one can only imagine how he will be in Downing Street. He also demonstrated today an unhealthy obsession with the UN, which is matched only by his worship of the EU, giving far too much credence to international organisations. Miliband is at heart a supranationalist, who demonstrates an extraordinary degree of deference to foreign governments and unelected bureaucrats. At the end of the day, whatever action Britain takes over Syria, or any foreign policy matter, should be decided by the British themselves."
Ed Miliband; lightweight amateur, out of his depth and unfit to run a whelk stall nevermind a country.
SquareRoot - If Ed Miliband wins the next election, by the middle of 2015 the 3 western powers on the security council will be led by Obama, Miliband and Hollande. Can anyone recall the west having such weak leadership
Most likely explanation is a local commander took the decision. But Assad still has ultimate responsibility.
That's at least plausible but bear in mind the actual situation on the ground in Syria i.e. an ethno-sectarian civil war with one side along the coast and the other in the interior more or less following the lines on this map
If the plan it to smash the regime's heavy weapons to allow the rebels to advance into alawite/christian/shia/druze areas then any moral case ought to balance the chemical weapon argument with all the unpleasant things the rebel forces will do when they get there.
Sawing the heads off prisoners with pen-knives is against international law too iirc.
UKIP have a big truck driving round the City of London advertising the fact that they oppose military action in Syria. It got stuck at some traffic lights, people read it and a few started applauding. A very odd / interesting experience.
I am curious as to whether it was just targeted at the City area as a means to try and win over "influential voices" for any future In/Out Vote.
Actually in the 70s 'Dai' Duckham was one of my favourite players.
As you say its a bit of a generalisation, but I still think rugby union right now is more relaxed and inclusive socially than it was in the 1970s or before that.
I remember being in the old east stand at Twickers in the 1980s and smiling at the tartan car rugs and thermos flasks....
When Wales scored their first points my mate and I stood up, and realised we were just about the only welshmen in the east stand.....
Twickers is another country; heavy with fedoras, yellow chords and game pie. It's not like that on a wet Saturday afternoon at Butts Park!
I would have expected Gordon Brown to speak about the strong moral case for action in Syria, didn't he read evidence for and against intervention in Iraq. It is surprising that a former Prime Minister mislaid his moral compass in favour of Ed Miliband's sequential road map. The Commons might have benefited from his authoritative views. Why was he absent today?
I still doubt that Cameron has done enough to convince sceptical MPs over action. 14 past CW attacks since 2012, still begs the question why now?
Watching the debate this afternoon, I made a mental bet with myself that once you finally returned, you would start desperately attempt a distraction from Flipper Ed's Commons disaster by chuntering on about immigration. And, strange cutie, you never ever let me down. Pity I didn't give myself more favorable odds.
Trouble with Ed (and you in spades) is that you're both too clever by half for your own good. All that hubris.... but we savour the inevitable nemesis.
I would have expected Gordon Brown to speak about the strong moral case for action in Syria, didn't he read evidence for and against intervention in Iraq. It is surprising that a former Prime Minister mislaid his moral compass in favour of Ed Miliband's sequential road map. The Commons might have benefited from his authoritative views. Why was he absent today?
I still doubt that Cameron has done enough to convince sceptical MPs over action. 14 past CW attacks since 2012, still begs the question why now?
Why now? The last attack was massive could not be ignored.
@Richard_Tyndall - The JIC assessment is completely unambiguous:
Against that background, the JIC concluded that it is highly likely that the regime was responsible for the CW attacks on 21 August. The JIC had high confidence in all of its assessments except in relation to the regime’s precise motivation for carrying out an attack of this scale at this time
Note that 'high confidence' is a very high bar for intelligence bods. That's as strong as you're going to get.
And if you really can't bring yourself to accept the JIC's word, you've also got to explain why France, Norway, the US, Turkey, and Germany (and, whisper it quietly, Israel) have all reached exactly the same conclusion.
In love and war, you're never going to get more certainty than that.
Labour's Lord Robertson spoke for me today. He asked how it makes sense to take a stand against chemical weapons but then say it's okay for Assad to destroy the country using conventional ones.
Out in the real world people are applauding anti war posters in the City of London. People think Cameron has really cocked / is cocking this up
It brings me back to the heady days of 2003 when I attended two of the big Anti-war rallies in Hyde Park, plus the "Bush sucks" rally in Trafalgar Square later that year. Dare I say it, this is rewakening long-dormant "Lefty peacenik" urges in me
Out in the real world people are applauding anti war posters in the City of London. People think Cameron has really cocked / is cocking this up
To the extent that that is true, why do they not think Ed Miliband has cocked it up, since (as far as one can tell through the confusion of the twists and turns of his position), he appears to have the same position as Cameron, excpe that he doesn't want to say it until Sunday?
Against that background, the JIC concluded that it is highly likely that the regime was responsible for the CW attacks on 21 August. The JIC had high confidence in all of its assessments except in relation to the regime’s precise motivation for carrying out an attack of this scale at this time
Note that 'high confidence' is a very high bar for intelligence bods. That's as strong as you're going to get.
And if you really can't bring yourself to accept the JIC's word, you've also got to explain why France, Norway, the US, Turkey, and Germany (and, whisper it quietly, Israel) have all reached exactly the same conclusion.
In love and war, you're never going to get more certainty than that.
It is no good claiming to know something and then refusing to give the evidence. Until such times as some proper evidence is presented beyond just 'trust us we're the Intelligence Committee', most of us are not going to believe the Government.
Of course as I have already stated for me personally that question is academic anyway as I don't believe that we should be attacking Syria even if they did use chemical weapons against their own people. Our attacks will not bring those people back, will certainly kill more innocent civilians and will not end the Civil War. They are pointless posturing in defence of artificial claims of moral superiority.
Kill a hundred thousand of your people with guns, bombs and knives and we will just let you get on with it. Kill 300 with chemical weapons and we will use that as the excuse to bomb you flat so we can salve our own guilt at being such hypocrites.
The Russians are coming. There is snow on their boots.
Speaking on Russian national television, Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said it was important to "undertake all the necessary steps to prevent the possible negative development of the situation" or the use of force against Syria.
"We are working towards that goal, our efforts are aimed at that," state-run ITAR-Tass new agency quoted him as saying.
and
Russian President Vladimir Putin and German Chancellor Angela Merkel agreed on Thursday on the need for the UN Security Council to study a report by UN experts on the alleged chemical attack outside Damascus, the Kremlin said.
"Both sides proceed from the fact that active work will be continued within the framework of the United Nations and other formats on issues of a political and diplomatic settlement of the current situation," the Kremlin said in a statement.
"In particular, it is important that the Security Council examines a report by UN inspectors about possible facts of the use of chemical weapons in Syria," it added.
In Berlin, German government spokesman Steffen Seibert confirmed the telephone conversation, saying Putin and Merkel agreed that the "conflict can only be resolved politically".
The German chancellor "emphasised that the inhumane poison gas attack against Syrian civilians requires an international reaction," Seibert added.
P.S. Putin's position appears to be identical to Miliband's. Who would have thought that?
SMukesh .. proof if proof were needed..it would help your case if you could actually spell.. More homework methinks
Don`t worry Doddy,I do understand it can`t be easy to support the position of a weak and useless PM and part of your job involves throwing insults around rather than engage in serious conversation!
Labour's Lord Robertson spoke for me today. He asked how it makes sense to take a stand against chemical weapons but then say it's okay for Assad to destroy the country using conventional ones.
If "sense" were the arbiter of action then dictators would be thin on the ground and their use of chemical weapons even thinner.
Labour's Lord Robertson spoke for me today. He asked how it makes sense to take a stand against chemical weapons but then say it's okay for Assad to destroy the country using conventional ones.
You may not like it, and moral philosophy is fraught with difficulty, but humanity in general seems to think that some atrocities are more atrocious than others, judging by international conventions. So mass murder is not as bad as mass murder with genocidal intent, and atom bombs are worse than HE bombs. Lefties actually appear to agree on this; why otherwise would CND campaign only for nuclear disarmament?
@Richard_Tyndall - I'm just trying to separate the nonsense objections from the sensible objections:
Nonsense objections:
- There's no evidence it was Assad - It's illegal to act - We should let the UN (i.e. the Russians) decide our position - Assad is no monster [admittedly, Roger appears to be the only person in the world, apart from Assad and his henchmen, who believes that!] - He's used chemicals before, so why now? As Cameron rightly pointed out, you can't simultaneously accuse him of being over-fast and over-slow to act. - It's all about Cameron warmongering, or indeed about Cameron at all.
Sensible objections:
- It might not be effective - It's dangerous, and might trigger nasty consequences in the region and possibly for us, and possibly drag us into the conflict - It's not a strategic interest of the UK's
I have every sympathy with those sensible objections; clearly it comes down to a judgement call, and a difficult one.
What I don't have sympathy with is Farage's position (which seems to be based on personal animosity to Cameron, and a complete disregard for the effect of his remarks), and Miliband's position (which, as far as I can tell, is simply to cause the maximum trouble without actually taking a view on what should be done, and certainly without opposing it on any sensible ground).
Cameron cocked up by deciding to go at 100mph when he (and the whole of the west) have done nothing for two years. All Miliband (and parliament) have done is said "hold on a minute - are we sure"
The massive over reaction of the Tory spinners, aiding Assad, etc just makes it look like Cameron is losing the plot. It is parliaments jobs to check this stuff and it is in Ed Milibands job description!
I think UKIP may gain a few more members out of this.
Labour has lodged a complaint about David Cameron's communications chief after he accused Ed Miliband of potentially "giving succour" to President Bashar Assad's regime by deciding to force the Government into a second vote before military action is taken against Syria.
Has it really taken all afternoon for your handlers to decide that changing the subject is the best way to rescue Miliband?
Pretty dire debate, Miliband was unsure and Cameron couldn't convince his own side. Cameron finds himself on the wrong side of public opinion completely though if you want solace from his position.
tim
If you think Tory backbenchers won't vote for their Government to fire a barrage of missiles at a bunch of rag-heads, you don't understand Tories.
Get your money on the PP bet for Labour's motion to fail and prepare to celebrate.
And don't, for your own health, follow the less gifted PB lefties in opposing military intervention in Syria. You'll just end up backtracking next week when your leader finally makes up his mind.
IOS/Sunil - On the pro Syria intervention side you have Cameron, Hague, Hollande, Liam Fox, Tony Blair, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Clegg, Paddy Ashdown. On the anti Syria intervention side you have Putin, probably Merkel, Rand Paul, George Galloway, Ed Miliband, John Boehner, David Davis, Lord Hurd and Nigel Farage. Barack Obama seems to be urging caution and has not yet clearly made up his mind. The left and right seem all over the shop on this
Rag-heads? Ahh the mask of Conservatism is slipping.
Racists. No wonder the Tories cannot win a majority in this country.
IOS
I had a very good friend who had a long and distinguished career as a political journalist who in his green and salad days was hauled before the Press Complaints Commission for using the term "ragheads" in an article for one of those freebie commuter mags.
He spent the rest of his career shunning and avoiding me in case I brought this matter up in public.
It seems unlikely that Britain will be taking part in any military activity in Syria. Personally, I'm quite comfortable with this. It's going to cause problems for all three major party leaders though.
RichardNavabi - But they are unsure of the response, so Merkel's position is probably not far from Obama's, she is certainly less gung-ho than Cameron or even Hollande
@Richard_Tyndall - I'm just trying to separate the nonsense objections from the sensible objections:
Nonsense objections:
- There's no evidence it was Assad - It's illegal to act - We should let the UN (i.e. the Russians) decide our position - Assad is no monster [admittedly, Roger appears to be the only person in the world, apart from Assad and his henchmen, who believes that!] - He's used chemicals before, so why now? As Cameron rightly pointed out, you can't simultaneously accuse him of being over-fast and over-slow to act. - It's all about Cameron warmongering, or indeed about Cameron at all.
Sensible objections:
- It might not be effective - It's dangerous, and might trigger nasty consequences in the region and possibly for us, and possibly drag us into the conflict - It's not a strategic interest of the UK's
I have every sympathy with those sensible objections; clearly it comes down to a judgement call, and a difficult one.
What I don't have sympathy with is Farage's position (which seems to be based on personal animosity to Cameron, and a complete disregard for the effect of his remarks), and Miliband's position (which, as far as I can tell, is simply to cause the maximum trouble without actually taking a view on what should be done, and certainly without opposing it on any sensible ground).
What a weird and inconsistent posting.
First you list all the reasons you think are nonsense . - some of which I agree with you about and some of which I don't.
Then you list all the the reasons you think are sensible.
Then you attack Farage for his opposition and make a stupid unfounded claim that his opposition is driven by animosity to Cameron when all the reasons he has given for his opposition are the ones you claim are serious and he has used none of the reasons you claim are nonsense.
I do wonder if you would be posting the same strident defence of the government position if it were a Labour Prime Minister pressing for war.
Antifrank - If the UK does nothing then the US does nothing, Obama has pretty much made clear he cannot be bothered without international support, especially as the US public, John Boehner and Harry Reid are sceptical at best
@Doddy Well the fact that you tried to shut me up posting against Cameron shows where your true heart lies.But am glad even you realise coming across as a Cameron flunky in the current situation is deeply embarrassing!
Rag-heads? Ahh the mask of Conservatism is slipping.
Racists. No wonder the Tories cannot win a majority in this country.
Not the mask of Conservatism. ALP's personal phrase.
I would never use the term - don't smear everyone. Same old Labour - playing politics when everyone else is thinking about potentially putting the lives of British servicemen and women at risk.
Then you attack Farage for his opposition and make a stupid unfounded claim that his opposition is driven by animosity to Cameron when all the reasons he has given for his opposition are the ones you claim are serious and he has used none of the reasons you claim are nonsense.
Did you watch his Russia Today interview? I'm sorry, but it is quite impossible to interpret that interview in any other way than the one I described. He doesn't even try to disguise it - he goes straight into utter nonsense about Cameron and Hague, as though they were the issue. A very revealing, and depressing, piece.
Oh, and when on earth did I make a strident defence of the government position? I haven't expressed a view one way or the other; I recognise the strength of the sensible objections, and I also recognise the strength of the argument that we can't tolerate the use of chemical weapons on civilians. This is not a simple judgement.
First you list all the reasons you think are nonsense . - some of which I agree with you about and some of which I don't.
Then you list all the the reasons you think are sensible.
Can you explain why you believe that giving dictators (in general) free rein to use chemical weapons in future without fear of intervention is in Britain's strategic interests?
(I believe you are of the view that intervention has no strategic benefits for the UK)
Discussion on R5 earlier made an interesting point in that EdM's position can be both party politics AND what he believes on principle - remember, opposition to Iraq was one of the things Ed used to differentiate himself with David during the Lab leadership election. Opposing a rushed unilateral offensive in the Middle East without looking at the evidence is entirely in keeping with his record, as well as being a typically opportunistic manoeuvre.
My assumption is that IoS is at least an activist, if not in a more formal role. I have no idea about ALP. Anyone formally connected has greater responsibility.
Personally, I am a former donor to the Tories, but am not currently a member or a donor (although I do support some MPs and candidates who are friends, but this is personal rather than political).
First you list all the reasons you think are nonsense . - some of which I agree with you about and some of which I don't.
Then you list all the the reasons you think are sensible.
Can you explain why you believe that giving dictators (in general) free rein to use chemical weapons in future without fear of intervention is in Britain's strategic interests?
(I believe you are of the view that intervention has no strategic benefits for the UK)
I see no difference between killing innocent people with chemical weapons and killing them in a hundred other vicious and agonising ways. Why is it that you seem to be content to let regimes kill tens of thousands of their own people using 'conventional' weapons no matter how horrific they might be, but want to go to war when someone uses chemical weapons.
Mines are banned under international convention just as chemical weapons are. Would you suggest we should be launching airstrikes against Syria if we had proof they were planting minefields?
IOS/Sunil - On the pro Syria intervention side you have Cameron, Hague, Hollande, Liam Fox, Tony Blair, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Clegg, Paddy Ashdown. On the anti Syria intervention side you have Putin, probably Merkel, Rand Paul, George Galloway, Ed Miliband, John Boehner, David Davis, Lord Hurd and Nigel Farage. Barack Obama seems to be urging caution and has not yet clearly made up his mind. The left and right seem all over the shop on this
The key words in that are "Tony Blair."
It might have only been the gang of four who were responsible for the dodgy dossier but the rest of the political establishment have only got themselves to blame for letting them get away with it afterwards e.g. Chilcot reporting some time in the next millenium.
Then you attack Farage for his opposition and make a stupid unfounded claim that his opposition is driven by animosity to Cameron when all the reasons he has given for his opposition are the ones you claim are serious and he has used none of the reasons you claim are nonsense.
Did you watch his Russia Today interview? I'm sorry, but it is quite impossible to interpret that interview in any other way than the one I described. He doesn't even try to disguise it - he goes straight into utter nonsense about Cameron and Hague, as though they were the issue. A very revealing, and depressing, piece.
Oh, and when on earth did I make a strident defence of the government position? I haven't expressed a view one way or the other; I recognise the strength of the sensible objections, and I also recognise the strength of the argument that we can't tolerate the use of chemical weapons on civilians. This is not a simple judgement.
Richard, you are incapable of seeing anything done by Farage as anything other than attack on Cameron. You have proved this long ago. Your judgement on this is flawed.
For some balance try looking at the official statements made by UKIP where they use all the arguments you have claimed are 'sensible' and not the ones you claim (incorrectly in some cases but that is another matter) are 'nonsense'.
Richard, you are incapable of seeing anything done by Farage as anything other than attack on Cameron. You have proved this long ago. Your judgement on this is flawed.
But it WAS an attack on Cameron, and a very personal one. That is my point. It is an objective fact, that, rather than commenting on the merits or otherwise of action, he framed it primarily as a personal attack on one of the many world leaders who, on balance, favour action. OK, he went on to give a rather flippant explanation on the substance, but that was an afterthought.
It's not my judgement on this that is flawed. Perhaps you haven't actually bothered to watch the interview.
If i was the US i'd park all my aircraft carriers up by Syria and tell them every monday morning we'll have a meeting to figure out who won in the previous week and then bomb them and repeat that process every week until both sides surrender. Then wherever the front-line is at that point make that the new border between Alawite Syria and Sunni Syria.
I have been critical of Cameron over the last few days over Syria,in the commons today,at least he looked and sounded like a PM but Ed Miliband was just pathetic.
Richard, you are incapable of seeing anything done by Farage as anything other than attack on Cameron. You have proved this long ago. Your judgement on this is flawed.
But it WAS an attack on Cameron, and a very personal one. That is my point. It is an objective fact, that, rather than commenting on the merits or otherwise of action, he framed it primarily as a personal attack on one of the many world leaders who, on balance, favour action. OK, he went on to give a rather flippant explanation on the substance, but that was an afterthought.
It's not my judgement on this that is flawed. Perhaps you haven't actually bothered to watch the interview.
Yes of course I have seen it but are you seriously suggesting one should not attack someone when they are trying to drag us into a war? The point is that Farage is not opposing intervention because he dislikes Cameron as you have been claiming but because he genuinely believes we should not be involved - for all the reasons you claim are sensible!
Right at the start of this debate a couple of days ago I said on here that I thought Cameron was genuine in his beliefs but just wrong. You seem to be incapable of accepting that others are genuine in their beliefs as well. Farage and UKIP have taken a very clear position on intervention from the start. It is you who are trying to claim this is due to some sort of personal vendetta.
I have far more time for posters like MBoy who have a clear pro-interventionist position (even though I disagree with it) and have been willing to criticise Miliband for the way he has behaved. This should be an issue that crosses party lines. Unfortunately you seem to be incapable of accepting that.
First you list all the reasons you think are nonsense . - some of which I agree with you about and some of which I don't.
Then you list all the the reasons you think are sensible.
Can you explain why you believe that giving dictators (in general) free rein to use chemical weapons in future without fear of intervention is in Britain's strategic interests?
(I believe you are of the view that intervention has no strategic benefits for the UK)
I see no difference between killing innocent people with chemical weapons and killing them in a hundred other vicious and agonising ways. Why is it that you seem to be content to let regimes kill tens of thousands of their own people using 'conventional' weapons no matter how horrific they might be, but want to go to war when someone uses chemical weapons.
Mines are banned under international convention just as chemical weapons are. Would you suggest we should be launching airstrikes against Syria if we had proof they were planting minefields?
I'm certainly not content that they are doing so. However, it is much harder to argue that it should be grounds for intervention
ABC weapons are differentiated by (a) their indiscriminate nature, targeting civilians and military equally and (b) the lack of proportionality - typically if a regime is attacking its population with conventional weapons, the population is fighting back.
First you list all the reasons you think are nonsense . - some of which I agree with you about and some of which I don't.
Then you list all the the reasons you think are sensible.
Can you explain why you believe that giving dictators (in general) free rein to use chemical weapons in future without fear of intervention is in Britain's strategic interests?
(I believe you are of the view that intervention has no strategic benefits for the UK)
I see no difference between killing innocent people with chemical weapons and killing them in a hundred other vicious and agonising ways. Why is it that you seem to be content to let regimes kill tens of thousands of their own people using 'conventional' weapons no matter how horrific they might be, but want to go to war when someone uses chemical weapons.
Mines are banned under international convention just as chemical weapons are. Would you suggest we should be launching airstrikes against Syria if we had proof they were planting minefields?
I'm certainly not content that they are doing so. However, it is much harder to argue that it should be grounds for intervention
ABC weapons are differentiated by (a) their indiscriminate nature, targeting civilians and military equally and (b) the lack of proportionality - typically if a regime is attacking its population with conventional weapons, the population is fighting back.
The reasons mines are banned is exactly because they are indiscriminate, and target civilians disproportionately. Again, why are you apparently supporting intervention for the use of one banned weapon and not others? Should we not be giving ultimatums and threatening to launch missile strikes against South Korea because they have half a million banned weapons planted along their northern border?
Yes of course I have seen it but are you seriously suggesting one should not attack someone when they are trying to drag us into a war?
Yes, I am saying that. No-one is trying to 'drag us into war' - that very phrase is objectionable and silly. Farage has used even more offensive phraseology:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzw8vW5JDS0
This is, or should be, about grown-up men and women soberly evaluating the merits and risks of action and inaction, not name-calling, personalising the argument, or trying to cause party-political trouble for the same of it.
Can you explain why you believe that giving dictators (in general) free rein to use chemical weapons in future without fear of intervention is in Britain's strategic interests?
(I believe you are of the view that intervention has no strategic benefits for the UK)
I see no difference between killing innocent people with chemical weapons and killing them in a hundred other vicious and agonising ways. Why is it that you seem to be content to let regimes kill tens of thousands of their own people using 'conventional' weapons no matter how horrific they might be, but want to go to war when someone uses chemical weapons.
Mines are banned under international convention just as chemical weapons are. Would you suggest we should be launching airstrikes against Syria if we had proof they were planting minefields?
I'm certainly not content that they are doing so. However, it is much harder to argue that it should be grounds for intervention
ABC weapons are differentiated by (a) their indiscriminate nature, targeting civilians and military equally and (b) the lack of proportionality - typically if a regime is attacking its population with conventional weapons, the population is fighting back.
The reasons mines are banned is exactly because they are indiscriminate, and target civilians disproportionately. Again, why are you apparently supporting intervention for the use of one banned weapon and not others? Should we not be giving ultimatums and threatening to launch missile strikes against South Korea because they have half a million banned weapons planted along their northern border?
You're misunderstanding the disproportionate point - I was talking about the power of the weaponry compared to what the other side has.
I'm not a fan of mines, by any means. That said is there a fool-proof (ish) way of proving who plants them?
Yes of course I have seen it but are you seriously suggesting one should not attack someone when they are trying to drag us into a war?
Yes, I am saying that. No-one is trying to 'drag us into war' - that very phrase is objectionable and silly. Farage has used even more offensive phraseology:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzw8vW5JDS0
This is, or should be, about grown-up men and women soberly evaluating the merits and risks of action and inaction, not name-calling, personalising the argument, or trying to cause party-political trouble for the same of it.
So you think bombing another country is not an act of war? I am sure all those Syrian civilians who are going to die as a consequence of our bombing will be very happy to hear that it is not actually a war. That makes all the difference.
Against that background, the JIC concluded that it is highly likely that the regime was responsible for the CW attacks on 21 August. The JIC had high confidence in all of its assessments except in relation to the regime’s precise motivation for carrying out an attack of this scale at this time
Note that 'high confidence' is a very high bar for intelligence bods. That's as strong as you're going to get.
And if you really can't bring yourself to accept the JIC's word, you've also got to explain why France, Norway, the US, Turkey, and Germany (and, whisper it quietly, Israel) have all reached exactly the same conclusion.
In love and war, you're never going to get more certainty than that.
It is no good claiming to know something and then refusing to give the evidence. Until such times as some proper evidence is presented beyond just 'trust us we're the Intelligence Committee', most of us are not going to believe the Government.
Of course as I have already stated for me personally that question is academic anyway as I don't believe that we should be attacking Syria even if they did use chemical weapons against their own people. Our attacks will not bring those people back, will certainly kill more innocent civilians and will not end the Civil War. They are pointless posturing in defence of artificial claims of moral superiority.
Kill a hundred thousand of your people with guns, bombs and knives and we will just let you get on with it. Kill 300 with chemical weapons and we will use that as the excuse to bomb you flat so we can salve our own guilt at being such hypocrites.
Halabja, 1988 - 5,000 casualties Invasion of Iraq, 2003 - far more than 5,000 casualties.
So you think bombing another country is not an act of war? I am sure all those Syrian civilians who are going to die as a consequence of our bombing will be very happy to hear that it is not actually a war. That makes all the difference.
Blimey, now you are getting silly.
Yes, bombing is an act of war. No, Hague and Cameron are not 'trying to drag us into war', still less are 'hungry for war' as Farage claimed in that video I linked to.
So you think bombing another country is not an act of war? I am sure all those Syrian civilians who are going to die as a consequence of our bombing will be very happy to hear that it is not actually a war. That makes all the difference.
Blimey, now you are getting silly.
Yes, bombing is an act of war. No, Hague and Cameron are not 'trying to drag us into war', still less 'hungry for war' as Farage claimed in that view I linked to.
You really can't see the distinction?
No. It is you who are getting silly. If we are going to be dragged into a war then it is the leaders who should be held accountable for that - particularly when the overwhelming majority of the country are opposed. So 'dragged into war' is a very apposite phrase to use in this case.
No. It is you who are getting silly. If we are going to be dragged into a war then it is the leaders who should be held accountable for that - particularly when the overwhelming majority of the country are opposed. So 'dragged into war' is a very apposite phrase to use in this case.
Let me first state I am still in the best off out of it camp,with no UK intervention,but several things worry me.
Firstly as been mentioned many times there is no motivation for Assad to use these weapons. If it was some element of the opposition forces,then I find it hard to beleive they used some kind of improvised device. I am convinced it was a nerve agent,and the most likely is Sarin,it would be extremely difficult to improvise a device to have such a profound effect.
The Japanese subway terrorist attack used improvised devices,in possibly the most ideal situation for mass casualties,underground,confined space,multiple drops,and manufactured by people who knew how to make it. Despite the above the Japanese attack thankfully had very few deaths in comparison.Sarin decomposes very rapidly,and the best means of deployment appears to be a binary shell,with the components mixed in flight,fuzed for an air burst and maximum atomisation,not a simple device.
This leads to the possibility that the opposition somehow had access to purpose designed shells,and the means to deploy them. How did they get them,were they aquired from Assad stock,or supplied from outside Syria.
Either way it is very worrying that CWs may be available to the opposition,and maybe AQ,how public opinion would change if such a device was used in London.
I am possibly wrong about the ability of terrorists to manufacture such weapons,I remember being shocked at the ferocity of the London tube bombs,and initially dismissed the idea of homemade explosives,I thought they must have been commercial stock.
I can still be persuaded to the intervention camp.
You're misunderstanding the disproportionate point - I was talking about the power of the weaponry compared to what the other side has.
I'm not a fan of mines, by any means. That said is there a fool-proof (ish) way of proving who plants them?
Is there a fool proof way of proving who fuses chemical weapons? Anyway we know who plants and maintains the minefields along the Korean border as they admit to it openly. The point being that both these forms of weaponry are banned by international treaty and yet we are using one as an excuse to get involved in a military adventure whilst happily (or not so happily as the case may be) ignoring the other.
Let me first state I am still in the best off out of it camp,with no UK intervention,but several things worry me.
Firstly as been mentioned many times there is no motivation for Assad to use these weapons. If it was some element of the opposition forces,then I find it hard to beleive they used some kind of improvised device. I am convinced it was a nerve agent,and the most likely is Sarin,it would be extremely difficult to improvise a device to have such a profound effect.
The Japanese subway terrorist attack used improvised devices,in possibly the most ideal situation for mass casualties,underground,confined space,multiple drops,and manufactured by people who knew how to make it. Despite the above the Japanese attack thankfully had very few deaths in comparison.Sarin decomposes very rapidly,and the best means of deployment appears to be a binary shell,with the components mixed in flight,fuzed for an air burst and maximum atomisation,not a simple device.
This leads to the possibility that the opposition somehow had access to purpose designed shells,and the means to deploy them. How did they get them,were they aquired from Assad stock,or supplied from outside Syria.
Either way it is very worrying that CWs may be available to the opposition,and maybe AQ,how public opinion would change if such a device was used in London.
I am possibly wrong about the ability of terrorists to manufacture such weapons,I remember being shocked at the ferocity of the London tube bombs,and initially dismissed the idea of homemade explosives,I thought they must have been commercial stock.
I can still be persuaded to the intervention camp.
"I am possibly wrong about the ability of terrorists to manufacture such weapons"
One of the things that follow from Assad having lots of chemical weapons is that stocks of them could be captured by the other side.
Yes of course I have seen it but are you seriously suggesting one should not attack someone when they are trying to drag us into a war?
Yes, I am saying that. No-one is trying to 'drag us into war' - that very phrase is objectionable and silly. Farage has used even more offensive phraseology:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzw8vW5JDS0
This is, or should be, about grown-up men and women soberly evaluating the merits and risks of action and inaction, not name-calling, personalising the argument, or trying to cause party-political trouble for the same of it.
Vis a vis puerile name-calling , Cameron characterised UKIP as full of "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists" .
Is it considered a crime to place prisoners in possible military target areas.
When faced with Cruise missiles raining on his infrastructure and war machine.I am not sure Assad will be thinking about the legality of these measures.
I can still be persuaded to the intervention camp.
I utterly disagree on the motivations front: Assad's motivations can be multiple and complex - Y0kel mentioned possibilities in a post earlier in the week.
1) AIUI, his army is stretched and has suffered both advances and reverses. If you are running out of men and materials, a tactical release of chemical weapons could help your troops achieve their localised aims.
2) Punishment: it sends a message to other areas who are rebelling.
3) Testing the limits of international opinion (the one mentioned by the PM)
However, we cannot neglect the possibility that he is utterly desperate and will try anything. The international community might well be less of an immediate threat to him than the rebels.
And it should be remembered that his family (and he himself) have a hideous track-record in punishing areas that revolt:
Any family that thinks such actions are okay might not see the use of chemical weapons in the same way we do.
Then there is the possibility that the Syrian army performed the act spontaneously without command from above (or were given permission to use them as-and-when). In which case Assad is just as culpable.
Comments
@annemcelvoy: If both Obama and JIC evidence on Syrian gassing isn't enough for Labour, can Ed Mil tell us what might suffice?
http://news.sky.com/story/1134712/syrian-politicians-letter-to-uk-mps
So far all we have seen is a letter from the JIC saying a chemical attack occurred (which no one seriously doubts) and a claim that they think it must have been the Assad regime because they don't believe the rebels have the capability. Maybe they should try to find out if the rebels (who are backed by Saudi Arabia and so are not exactly resorting to throwing stones to win the war) do actually have the capability.
They also cite 14 previous occasions when they claim the Assad regime used chemical weapons. But even though they use this as a supporting argument for their claims, they have presented no evidence previously that the Assad regime was responsible for the earlier attacks.
More to the point if the Assad regime carried out these previous chemical attacks and we have the evidence to support that claim, why is it that this attack is the one that has triggered the war mongers and not the previous 14 occasions?
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/502266/20130829/north-korea-ri-sol-ju-kim-jong.htm
News of the meeting was leaked by a UN diplomat who spoke on "condition of anonymity".
The back room meetings are starting!
2) The cui bono points overwhelmingly points at the rebels.
3) Our glorious leaders were perfectly happy to lie over Iraq's WMDs.
"Miliband’s embarrassing performance today does not bode well for Britain if he becomes prime minister. He simply doesn’t come across as someone who projects clear leadership or commands the attention of his audience. His knowledge of the subject matter at hand appeared wafer-thin. If this is what he is like in opposition, one can only imagine how he will be in Downing Street. He also demonstrated today an unhealthy obsession with the UN, which is matched only by his worship of the EU, giving far too much credence to international organisations. Miliband is at heart a supranationalist, who demonstrates an extraordinary degree of deference to foreign governments and unelected bureaucrats. At the end of the day, whatever action Britain takes over Syria, or any foreign policy matter, should be decided by the British themselves."
Ed Miliband; lightweight amateur, out of his depth and unfit to run a whelk stall nevermind a country.
We can then await the spectacle next week of Obama's people putting pressure on Labour and bringing them into line.
Jade Dernbach's playing for England
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Syria_Ethno-religious_composition..jpg
If the plan it to smash the regime's heavy weapons to allow the rebels to advance into alawite/christian/shia/druze areas then any moral case ought to balance the chemical weapon argument with all the unpleasant things the rebel forces will do when they get there.
Sawing the heads off prisoners with pen-knives is against international law too iirc.
And you're such a meanie.
You mean Sky Sports Ashes is not broadcasting the same match from Headingly I must have seen 50 times over the summer?! Shock.
I am curious as to whether it was just targeted at the City area as a means to try and win over "influential voices" for any future In/Out Vote.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/aug/18/twenty20-finals-day-northamptonshire-surrey
I still doubt that Cameron has done enough to convince sceptical MPs over action. 14 past CW attacks since 2012, still begs the question why now?
More homework methinks
Has it really taken all afternoon for your handlers to decide that changing the subject is the best way to rescue Miliband?
Trouble with Ed (and you in spades) is that you're both too clever by half for your own good. All that hubris.... but we savour the inevitable nemesis.
Against that background, the JIC concluded that it is highly likely that the regime was responsible for the CW attacks on 21 August. The JIC had high confidence in all of its assessments except in relation to the regime’s precise motivation for carrying out an attack of this scale at this time
Note that 'high confidence' is a very high bar for intelligence bods. That's as strong as you're going to get.
And if you really can't bring yourself to accept the JIC's word, you've also got to explain why France, Norway, the US, Turkey, and Germany (and, whisper it quietly, Israel) have all reached exactly the same conclusion.
In love and war, you're never going to get more certainty than that.
Out in the real world people are applauding anti war posters in the City of London. People think Cameron has really cocked / is cocking this up
Makes yer proud to be British.
46% of voters believe that when it comes to Syria Cameron is genuinely concerned to do what is right & in Britain's interests. 33% Disagree
Of course as I have already stated for me personally that question is academic anyway as I don't believe that we should be attacking Syria even if they did use chemical weapons against their own people. Our attacks will not bring those people back, will certainly kill more innocent civilians and will not end the Civil War. They are pointless posturing in defence of artificial claims of moral superiority.
Kill a hundred thousand of your people with guns, bombs and knives and we will just let you get on with it. Kill 300 with chemical weapons and we will use that as the excuse to bomb you flat so we can salve our own guilt at being such hypocrites.
Speaking on Russian national television, Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said it was important to "undertake all the necessary steps to prevent the possible negative development of the situation" or the use of force against Syria.
"We are working towards that goal, our efforts are aimed at that," state-run ITAR-Tass new agency quoted him as saying.
and
Russian President Vladimir Putin and German Chancellor Angela Merkel agreed on Thursday on the need for the UN Security Council to study a report by UN experts on the alleged chemical attack outside Damascus, the Kremlin said.
"Both sides proceed from the fact that active work will be continued within the framework of the United Nations and other formats on issues of a political and diplomatic settlement of the current situation," the Kremlin said in a statement.
"In particular, it is important that the Security Council examines a report by UN inspectors about possible facts of the use of chemical weapons in Syria," it added.
In Berlin, German government spokesman Steffen Seibert confirmed the telephone conversation, saying Putin and Merkel agreed that the "conflict can only be resolved politically".
The German chancellor "emphasised that the inhumane poison gas attack against Syrian civilians requires an international reaction," Seibert added.
P.S. Putin's position appears to be identical to Miliband's. Who would have thought that?
Nonsense objections:
- There's no evidence it was Assad
- It's illegal to act
- We should let the UN (i.e. the Russians) decide our position
- Assad is no monster [admittedly, Roger appears to be the only person in the world, apart from Assad and his henchmen, who believes that!]
- He's used chemicals before, so why now? As Cameron rightly pointed out, you can't simultaneously accuse him of being over-fast and over-slow to act.
- It's all about Cameron warmongering, or indeed about Cameron at all.
Sensible objections:
- It might not be effective
- It's dangerous, and might trigger nasty consequences in the region and possibly for us, and possibly drag us into the conflict
- It's not a strategic interest of the UK's
I have every sympathy with those sensible objections; clearly it comes down to a judgement call, and a difficult one.
What I don't have sympathy with is Farage's position (which seems to be based on personal animosity to Cameron, and a complete disregard for the effect of his remarks), and Miliband's position (which, as far as I can tell, is simply to cause the maximum trouble without actually taking a view on what should be done, and certainly without opposing it on any sensible ground).
Cameron cocked up by deciding to go at 100mph when he (and the whole of the west) have done nothing for two years. All Miliband (and parliament) have done is said "hold on a minute - are we sure"
The massive over reaction of the Tory spinners, aiding Assad, etc just makes it look like Cameron is losing the plot. It is parliaments jobs to check this stuff and it is in Ed Milibands job description!
I think UKIP may gain a few more members out of this.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-08-29/labour-complaint-over-tory-spin-doctor-craig-oliver/
If you think Tory backbenchers won't vote for their Government to fire a barrage of missiles at a bunch of rag-heads, you don't understand Tories.
Get your money on the PP bet for Labour's motion to fail and prepare to celebrate.
And don't, for your own health, follow the less gifted PB lefties in opposing military intervention in Syria. You'll just end up backtracking next week when your leader finally makes up his mind.
Rightly so. Cameron is losing the plot if he thinks even a slow down request is helping Assad. Especially as this has been going on for two years.
Racists. No wonder the Tories cannot win a majority in this country.
both were 1/100 certs.
8% support Cameron's position.
I had a very good friend who had a long and distinguished career as a political journalist who in his green and salad days was hauled before the Press Complaints Commission for using the term "ragheads" in an article for one of those freebie commuter mags.
He spent the rest of his career shunning and avoiding me in case I brought this matter up in public.
Allow me please my little private jokes.
http://www.dw.de/germanys-response-to-the-syria-conundrum/a-17052411
http://www.thelocal.de/national/20130829-51663.html
First you list all the reasons you think are nonsense . - some of which I agree with you about and some of which I don't.
Then you list all the the reasons you think are sensible.
Then you attack Farage for his opposition and make a stupid unfounded claim that his opposition is driven by animosity to Cameron when all the reasons he has given for his opposition are the ones you claim are serious and he has used none of the reasons you claim are nonsense.
I do wonder if you would be posting the same strident defence of the government position if it were a Labour Prime Minister pressing for war.
Well the fact that you tried to shut me up posting against Cameron shows where your true heart lies.But am glad even you realise coming across as a Cameron flunky in the current situation is deeply embarrassing!
I would never use the term - don't smear everyone. Same old Labour - playing politics when everyone else is thinking about potentially putting the lives of British servicemen and women at risk.
Oh, and when on earth did I make a strident defence of the government position? I haven't expressed a view one way or the other; I recognise the strength of the sensible objections, and I also recognise the strength of the argument that we can't tolerate the use of chemical weapons on civilians. This is not a simple judgement.
(I believe you are of the view that intervention has no strategic benefits for the UK)
Personally, I am a former donor to the Tories, but am not currently a member or a donor (although I do support some MPs and candidates who are friends, but this is personal rather than political).
Mines are banned under international convention just as chemical weapons are. Would you suggest we should be launching airstrikes against Syria if we had proof they were planting minefields?
It might have only been the gang of four who were responsible for the dodgy dossier but the rest of the political establishment have only got themselves to blame for letting them get away with it afterwards e.g. Chilcot reporting some time in the next millenium.
For some balance try looking at the official statements made by UKIP where they use all the arguments you have claimed are 'sensible' and not the ones you claim (incorrectly in some cases but that is another matter) are 'nonsense'.
"Assads brother is the person believed responsible for the attack."
Brothers eh? Typical? You trust them and they let you down, don't they, David?
It's not my judgement on this that is flawed. Perhaps you haven't actually bothered to watch the interview.
Right at the start of this debate a couple of days ago I said on here that I thought Cameron was genuine in his beliefs but just wrong. You seem to be incapable of accepting that others are genuine in their beliefs as well. Farage and UKIP have taken a very clear position on intervention from the start. It is you who are trying to claim this is due to some sort of personal vendetta.
I have far more time for posters like MBoy who have a clear pro-interventionist position (even though I disagree with it) and have been willing to criticise Miliband for the way he has behaved. This should be an issue that crosses party lines. Unfortunately you seem to be incapable of accepting that.
ABC weapons are differentiated by (a) their indiscriminate nature, targeting civilians and military equally and (b) the lack of proportionality - typically if a regime is attacking its population with conventional weapons, the population is fighting back.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzw8vW5JDS0
This is, or should be, about grown-up men and women soberly evaluating the merits and risks of action and inaction, not name-calling, personalising the argument, or trying to cause party-political trouble for the same of it.
I'm not a fan of mines, by any means. That said is there a fool-proof (ish) way of proving who plants them?
Invasion of Iraq, 2003 - far more than 5,000 casualties.
Yes, bombing is an act of war. No, Hague and Cameron are not 'trying to drag us into war', still less are 'hungry for war' as Farage claimed in that video I linked to.
You really can't see the distinction?
Firstly as been mentioned many times there is no motivation for Assad to use these weapons.
If it was some element of the opposition forces,then I find it hard to beleive they used some kind of improvised device. I am convinced it was a nerve agent,and the most likely is Sarin,it would be extremely difficult to improvise a device to have such a profound effect.
The Japanese subway terrorist attack used improvised devices,in possibly the most ideal situation for mass casualties,underground,confined space,multiple drops,and manufactured by people who knew how to make it. Despite the above the Japanese attack thankfully had very few deaths in comparison.Sarin decomposes very rapidly,and the best means of deployment appears to be a binary shell,with the components mixed in flight,fuzed for an air burst and maximum atomisation,not a simple device.
This leads to the possibility that the opposition somehow had access to purpose designed shells,and the means to deploy them. How did they get them,were they aquired from Assad stock,or supplied from outside Syria.
Either way it is very worrying that CWs may be available to the opposition,and maybe AQ,how public opinion would change if such a device was used in London.
I am possibly wrong about the ability of terrorists to manufacture such weapons,I remember being shocked at the ferocity of the London tube bombs,and initially dismissed the idea of homemade explosives,I thought they must have been commercial stock.
I can still be persuaded to the intervention camp.
I am not a Cameron flunky..
I am not even a Tory.
More homework needed lad.
One of the things that follow from Assad having lots of chemical weapons is that stocks of them could be captured by the other side.
1) AIUI, his army is stretched and has suffered both advances and reverses. If you are running out of men and materials, a tactical release of chemical weapons could help your troops achieve their localised aims.
2) Punishment: it sends a message to other areas who are rebelling.
3) Testing the limits of international opinion (the one mentioned by the PM)
However, we cannot neglect the possibility that he is utterly desperate and will try anything. The international community might well be less of an immediate threat to him than the rebels.
And it should be remembered that his family (and he himself) have a hideous track-record in punishing areas that revolt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Hama_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Hama_massacre
Any family that thinks such actions are okay might not see the use of chemical weapons in the same way we do.
Then there is the possibility that the Syrian army performed the act spontaneously without command from above (or were given permission to use them as-and-when). In which case Assad is just as culpable.