[Archived] The arabs are revolting

[Audax]

I once knew a Pakistani but on that subject alone, he was obstinate and stubborn. I didn't want to say anything but the way I read things, that is the way a lot of Pakistanis (if that is the correct term to use, haven't known many), perhaps youths are.

And then, like I said, I've met a number of Palestinians, never rubbed me the wrong way. This one guy who would play football with us acted like a kind of an oddball but was a good guy overall, he was so thin, at times though he did not seem to have any health problems or mobility problems if somehow his thinness was caused by some accident or even warfare. Anyway, they are all fine until one topic comes up so since it directly affects them, I'm rather sensitive to it.

People are people.

[Audax]

Back to the subject, it really doesn't make sense Assad troops might hurl gas in their own big city of Damascus.

Looks like so far, investigators can't tell who was to blame. No smoking gun. Tragic, very tragic.

[neekoy]

Are you really comparing me to Adolf Hitler ? If you knew the which type of political parties I had belonged to for the last few decades you would know how funny that was.

If you are comparing me to him I think you are very confused but that's not your fault this is probably due to our countries education system. Hitler was an anti-Semite which basically means he was prejudice and discriminated against Jews. Whereas anti-Zionism is completely different firstly it has nothing all it has nothing to do with Judaism for example your heroin Thatcher was a Zionist. Anti-Zionists oppose the creation and continuation of the illegal apartheid sate that is known as 'Israel'.

Just to back myself up again against your defamatory claims against me Norman Finkelstein (who is Jewish) is a staunch anti-Zionist and has written many excellent books on it that I would recommend you read to educate yourself because a little knowledge which you clearly have is very dangerous.

I just feel sorry for the poor old Canaanites in all this......

Just to clarify for you

1. Anti-semites are against all Semite people, not just Jews

2. Israel is not an apartheid state, the West Bank and Gaza are governed by the PA and Hamas, Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Jewish Arabs

3. Thatcher believed that we should live as individuals, which is against Zionist ideology of a single state of peoples, in fact, Israel is broken up into four groups of very different ideals and peoples. Zionism is not about expansion but about bringing those four groups together under one state.

4. Israel is not an illegal state, the settlements in the West Bank may be viewed that way if you believe that Mandatory Palestine are the borders you wish to choose though out the tumultuous change of hands in the area

5. Your hero Norman Finkelstein has always believed in a two state solution and the 1967 borders.

You are using Zionist like someone would use the term Nazi, which is very disingenuous. You either believe that Israel and Palestine should have their own states or you believe that Israel should wiped off the map and the land given to the Palestinians who actually have no more claim over the land.

Jewish is the same as Palestinian, it is about identity and heritage and not about actually belonging to a parcel of land.

[Paul]

Good news. Well done parliament. Recent opinion polls showed 22% of the electorate in favour of action in Syria and it seems they have listened to the majority.

[Stuart]

How on earth is standing by and watching TV pictures of the death and maiming of Syrian civilians "good news", Paul? Very poor choice of words.

Those MPs who cheered at the results should be ashamed of themselves too.

Maybe we have no place to intervene but a bit of consideration and dignity wouldn't go a miss.

Just imagine being Syrian. Being desperate for someone to help stop the killing of your family, your children and instead you hear is the undignified cheering of some privileged British people that because they are happy that they aren't going to do anything. "Thanks".

Hearing those toffs cheering has really upset me this morning - even more than your "good news".

[koi]

I'm very uncomfortable with this. If ever there was a case for intervening this is it yet due to Blair's illegal wars we just don't have the appetite. We are one of three nations that has the capabilities to act and it wont be happening. I fear the damage Blair has left us will have ramifications for years to come.

[Audax]

World War I started rather innocuously when the Archduke was assassinated.

I think that's why some MPs and others might cheer not taking action here because of the so-called dogs of war and no telling what direction this could head.

Let's see proof. It would have been bad to take action if not warranted. It's definitely got everyone's attention. If there are stockpiles of chemical weapons, maybe at some point those do need to be bombed.

And I'm sorry for these people but there is a lot of persecution that goes on in this world where actions are not taken and it is sad.

[Stuart]

And I'm sorry for these people but there is a lot of persecution that goes on in this world where actions are not taken and it is sad.

Agreed but we don't cheer about it.

[koi]

World War I started rather innocuously when the Archduke was assassinated.

I think that's why some MPs and others might cheer not taking action here because of the so-called dogs of war and no telling what direction this could head.

Let's see proof. It would have been bad to take action if not warranted. It's definitely got everyone's attention. If there are stockpiles of chemical weapons, maybe at some point those do need to be bombed.

And I'm sorry for these people but there is a lot of persecution that goes on in this world where actions are not taken and it is sad.

I understand that and the vote last night wasn't to giver parliamentary permission to get involved, even if it had have been voted through another vote would've been needed. Cameron has been very foolish, he had no need to have a vote at this stage, he should've had the debate and wait for the UN findings.

[Paul]

How on earth is standing by and watching TV pictures of the death and maiming of Syrian civilians "good news", Paul? Very poor choice of words.

Those MPs who cheered at the results should be ashamed of themselves too.

Maybe we have no place to intervene but a bit of consideration and dignity wouldn't go a miss.

Just imagine being Syrian. Being desperate for someone to help stop the killing of your family, your children and instead you hear is the undignified cheering of some privileged British people that because they are happy that they aren't going to do anything. "Thanks".

Hearing those toffs cheering has really upset me this morning - even more than your "good news".

Stuart I've listened to the Panorama report on the bombing using something akin to napalm on a school this morning. I would have preferred to switch the radio off but I didn't.

My "good news" is the British parliament has listened to the British people of whom only 22%, according to the BBC yesterday (can't find the link) have shown support for intervention and other polls show strong opposition:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/22/us-uk-reject-stronger-syria-support

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

My "good news" was very clear our MPs have listened to the British electorate, that is their role. There is no good news coming out of Syria but that is a different point and it most certainly is not the suggestion I made.

[Ozz]

The majority of British people don`t want the NHS privatising either.

[jim mk2]

Parliament were right to listen to the electorate but to describe it as "good news" considering the plight of the Syrian people is plainly wrong.

As it happens, I think the electorate is also wrong and there is a very clear case for intervention.

Not for the first time, Cameron has jumped in with this feet first and not thought this through properly.

[den]

Parliament were right to listen to the electorate but to describe it as "good news" considering the plight of the Syrian people is plainly wrong.

As it happens, I think the electorate is also wrong and there is a very clear case for intervention.

I think the electorate are wrong as well Jim, but it's very difficult to make an argument that goes against a large majority.

In this instance, I think many MP's were finding it difficult to support Cameron's position in the light of the aftermath of Iraq, even though, in their heart of hearts, they know that the use of chemical weapons by anyone, never mind governments against their own people. I believe they would have found it difficult to defend a position of military action, after their severe criticism of the Iraq conflict.

In other words, many MP's, Tories in particular, hid behind the electorates feelings of the matter, when they knew different.

If Cameron knew the feelings running in the country, which I'm sure he did, what compelled him to recall parliament before the inspectors completed their investigations? A massive misjudgement from him.

[Alex Rover]

Well whatever it was it wasn't a "vote for peace", either way it's just going to get worse over there it would seem.

[Guest Norbert]

If Assad wins the war, many thousands will be killed and Iran's puppet will be even more tightly controlled by Tehran and Russia. If the rebels win the war, The Al Qaeda types will fight the other rebels, more will die and we could have another Yemen/Afghanistan. The decent moderate masses are probably the poor people who have run away to refugee camps.

So either way we, as in the Western powers, lose.

[Alex Rover]

So either way we, as in the Western powers, lose.

The Russians will be happy after hearing of our vote. The countries most likely to take any action are split. It's usually the French but seems that they are going to press on with the Americans for something to happen.

[RibbleValleyRover]

Our standing in the world took a huge hit last night and could take years to rebuild. We look weak in the eyes of many now, my only hope is that a strike continues ahead by the US.

At least Cameron had a stance on what he felt was the right thing to do and stuck to it. Miliband? You only have to read what has been said in the papers today on his flip flopping for political gain:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100233350/miliband-was-governed-by-narrow-political-interests-not-the-national-interests-or-those-of-syrian-children/

"The answer is David Cameron believed Labour would fall in line because Ed Miliband kept telling him they would. Yesterday, there was lots of debate about who had said what to whom in what meeting or what phone conversation.

But these facts are indisputable. Ed Miliband said that if he was to back the Government, David Cameron would have to publish the legal advice upon which the case for war rested. David Cameron agreed, and did so.

Ed Miliband then said a solid case needed to be presented demonstrating the Assad regime’s culpability for the chemical attacks. David Cameron agreed, and published the JIC analysis which concluded “there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility”.

Ed Miliband then said the Government would have to exhaust the UN route before any recourse to military action. David Cameron agreed, and confirmed he would be submitting a motion to the P5 to that effect.

Ed Miliband said he would need to await the UN weapons inspectors report. David Cameron agreed.

Finally, and crucially, Ed Miliband said there would have to be not one, but two House of Commons votes before military action could be authorised. Once again David Cameron agreed.

And then, having sought – and received – all these assurances from the Prime Minister, Ed Miliband went ahead and voted against the Government anyway."

I think that shows the lengths Miliband will go to score political gain from a deeply troubling situation.

[den]

It wasn't Milliband that defeated Cameron, it was Cameron's inability to get the backing of his own MP's.

This morning the Syrian government and the Russians have both issued statements welcoming the British position.

[RibbleValleyRover]

It wasn't Milliband that defeated Cameron, it was Cameron's inability to get the backing of his own MP's.

This morning the Syrian government and the Russians have both issued statements welcoming the British position.

Obviously, just pointing that Miliband's and Labour's view changes like the wind. Cameron was told by Miliband himself that he had Labour's backing for action which is one of the reasons why he recalled parliament, then he suddenly changed his mind.

I'm not surprised Russia welcomes it, just waiting for China to say the same now. They don't want to see one of their major trading partners/allies attacked. Just like if we end up going down the UN route and they both use their veto to stop any action no matter what the reports and intelligence says.

[Alex Rover]

Cameron was told by Miliband himself that he had Labour's backing for action which is one of the reasons why he recalled parliament, then he suddenly changed his mind.

Convenient that isn't it? Just when he and Labour are struggling. As long as they all voted for what they think is right and not for political gains. Or am I being naive?

[den]

Convenient that isn't it? Just when he and Labour are struggling. As long as they all voted for what they think is right and not for political gains. Or am I being naive?

Unlike the Tories who voted with Labour and the UN, to go into Iraq, then turned tail after the event?

[den]

Obviously, just pointing that Miliband's and Labour's view changes like the wind. Cameron was told by Miliband himself that he had Labour's backing for action which is one of the reasons why he recalled parliament, then he suddenly changed his mind.

Labour didn't change their mind on action in Syria, they gave their backing subject to certain procedures being met. They put forward an amendment that was rejected by the Tories.

http://www.itv.com/news/2013-08-28/full-text-of-labours-amendment-on-syria/

[thenodrog]

The majority of British people don`t want the NHS privatising either.

That comment has to be balanced by the facty that the majority of British people dont want to pay for the NHS either.

[thenodrog]

Parliament were right to listen to the electorate but to describe it as "good news" considering the plight of the Syrian people is plainly wrong.

As it happens, I think the electorate is also wrong and there is a very clear case for intervention.

Not for the first time, Cameron has jumped in with this feet first and not thought this through properly.

Indeed so. Cameron should have learned his lesson from the results of Tony Blair's war mongering based on the non existant weapons of mass destruction and his desire to turn Iraq into his very own Falklands.

Post 109 above by Koi is absolutely spot on.

[thenodrog]

Good news. Well done parliament. Recent opinion polls showed 22% of the electorate in favour of action in Syria and it seems they have listened to the majority.

Roughly the %age of votes:population needed to win a General Election isn't it? Gives a different slant to the term 'majority' doesn't it?

How on earth is standing by and watching TV pictures of the death and maiming of Syrian civilians "good news", Paul? Very poor choice of words.

Those MPs who cheered at the results should be ashamed of themselves too.

Maybe we have no place to intervene but a bit of consideration and dignity wouldn't go a miss.

Just imagine being Syrian. Being desperate for someone to help stop the killing of your family, your children and instead you hear is the undignified cheering of some privileged British people that because they are happy that they aren't going to do anything. "Thanks".

Hearing those toffs cheering has really upset me this morning - even more than your "good news".

The cheering toffs in the main were from the Labour benches. Not sure they'd like your description of them cos they pretend to represent the working class...... a very misleading term these days I have to say.