UK Inteligance Report on Syria Confirms Assad used Chemical Weapons

The document is basically a load of assertions. A judgement call by people who's judgement has no intrinsic credibility.

No hard evidence of anything.

I fail to see how any jury (that wasn't already tainted and looking for an excuse) could possibly be convinced to sentence one man to death on this evidence. Never mind engaging a nation in war and potentially killing untold scores of people.

Originally posted by gortex
Yay let's go kill people

UK Intelligence Report on Iraq said Saddam had WMD , does anyone believe Government sponsored Intelligence Reports anymore ?

In a word...NOPE!

There is no evidence of Assad using CWs. None.

The UN inspectors arrive and Assad uses gas? NOT A CHANCE.

NO mention of the previous rebels using Sarin gas, except to ask where to send their blood money and fresh armaments.

US, UK and Israel have been chomping at the bit to get at Assad and remove his Government for years before they staged these false flags.

It's a bloody lie...the whole 'rebellion' is staged...Russia, Iran and China (and their respective allies) know this, and will not tollerate another country being ruined by the West's lust for death and destruction in the region.

UK security forces intimidates Daily Mail staff, orders them to retract a January story 'Britam defence leaked emails discussing a false flag op in Syria'...which, after initially refusing, eventually comply with the order and print that 'we made it all up about the emails...honest'. The Corporation, Britam defence and the British Government were given right to reply and pass comment on the story, but both remained silent despite they had over a month in which to comment...are these the actions of the innocent or the guilty?

UK security forces intimidates Guardian writers partner, holds him for 9 hours under 'terrorism' legislation then orders the Guardian to destroy data stored on hard drives and computers connected to the Snowden leaks...they watch closely as the drives and gear are physically completely destroyed using angle grinders and sledge hammers.

Again, not quite the action of a democratic United Kingdom and not the actions of those with nothing to hide (as they are so fond of proclaiming to us).

Damned right i don't believe a word that comes out of their faces mate.

Originally posted by skitzspiricy
Anyone watching the Parliament recall?

Parliament TV

This is a helpful link. It gives me a sense of hope in hearing the majority saying to wait for the UN investigation to be completed. One of the best arguments for this is strengthening Hezbollah by weakening Assad (of the two, Assad being the better choice to at least not render him ineffective in his battle of this organizarion). One of the poorest arguments was "strike them and then ask them to give the UN all of their chemical weapons". That doesn't even make sense. Like they would then say, "okay were afraid of you now so here you go".

Basically - what is the objective; what do we hope to gain by this? What are all possible outcomes? This sort of thinking should have happened a week ago instead of jumping the gun. Thats why these heads are paid the big bucks. Im sure our (US) administration is watching this so maybe some lessons will be learned on steps to take before proclaiming a wish to attack a country in the midst of civil war. Maybe they could also apply this same process before supplying help to any one side.

Hearing a lot of "now that people have cooled down" " now that people are actually taking time to think",etc. How close did this come to an attack without taking the time to think it through? What if the public in Britan and the US had been as careless, and cheered the governments on? Our leaders should have taken these steps without public outcry. It's troubling they did not. Their jobs are important because they are making decisions that affect the masses. I don't care how it makes them feel (on any matter) as much as I care about how a decision will impact the people short term and long term.

In all fairness to Obama, he stated a few days ago that he had not made a decision yet. That was partly due to a lot of pressure from congress (who is in recess) who were strongly urging him to cool down and wait for them. It would have been more assuring to hear him state it is being investigated, and then share that options and the consequences of those options are being weighed. He could have then shared his personal thoughts and feelings on the matter. Instead we have been hearing statements from his administration (and him) of how they must be taught a lesson, with an attempt to get us all behind them; riling people up.

I want to know my government thinks critically about these things. The impression this last week has been that there are no checks and balances. This whole thing should be a reminder to them that there is a purpose to the process: to cause the least amount of harm; insure critical thinking from many to get all potenitals, and to keep public confidence up. I do wish our government would reassure us that they now understand why this is in place, and promise come what may (minus a threat on our turf), they will follow protocol to the letter for any decisions that can affect others. Even if they decide to go with the origional knee jerk decision it's always important to go through the process of thinking things through, and let the public know they are doing this. Get your emotions under control, and be the leaders you were elected to be.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


I'm not being sarcastic...but is that it?

Is there nothing more? It's just three pages which tell us nothing....

Are they still "detaining" the members of Parliament? They call it a recall but really, it's a good interrogation tactic. Keep people sitting where they don't want to be and they'll eventually cough to anything.

'We're going to talk you blue in the face until you see it our way!"

"Alright-- Alright-- ALRIGHT!. Lets just vote for war already so we can get back to our vacations."

"Thank-you. You may go."

Murmur, murmur, murmur.,.

I must say..I am feeling quite proud listening to our Parliament debating tonight and feel confident in their opinions. Most saying not to go into war without concrete evidence being presented. My only feeling is that Cameron will not listen just as Tony Blair didn't.

reply to post by Kram09


Yeah i know not much info

I think its possible that idea behind the report was not so much to provide information but rather to make the position of the JIC clear.

I could be wrong but thats the only reason i can think of.

But yeah hardly the kind of document that gives any kind of justification for a war on its own.

reply to post by sueloujo

"Thank goodness we have a British parliamentary democracy," rejoices Conservative backbencher Peter Bone, "where we can come as MPs and influence the decisions of the executive." MPs from both sides of the House, he says, have altered the PM's stance on Syria. "In the US, you have 100 congressmen begging the president to let them debate the issue. We are so much better off in this House."

From the BBC News Live Update

1956: The debate on Syria in the UK Parliament has prompted its first resignation. Jim Fitzpatrick has handed in his resignation as shadow transport spokesman, the BBC understands.


wow...

1903: Back in the UK's House of Lords, Labour economist Lord Desai has a bleak prognosis. "We are going to intervene sooner or later," he tells peers, "because this war is going last for much longer than we think. It is not just a Syrian civil war. This is part of a 40-year crisis of the Muslim Middle East... It's not just a Shia-Sunni war, this is sort of a rehearsal, like the Spanish civil war, of the bigger conflagration which is about to come".

From BBC Live Update

I'm from Belgium, could any of you Brits give me just a short explanation,

difference between house of commons and house of lords?

Originally posted by Senduko
I'm from Belgium, could any of you Brits give me just a short explanation,

difference between house of commons and house of lords?

House of Commons. Members have to be voted in by the general population of the UK. The members are called MP's (Members Of Parliament)

House of Lords. These are unelected members who sit in the Lords if they have a peerage i.e. Lord. Lady, Baron Baroness. There are two kinds of peerage. One is passed down through the family, the others are given by political parties. Usually after they have served as an MP

1820: While UK MPs weigh up whether military intervention in Syria is legally justified without consensus at the UN, the White House is reportedly taking a different approach. "When the president reaches a determination about the appropriate response," a spokesman is quoted by Reuters as saying, "and a legal justification is required to substantiate or to back up that decision, we'll produce one on our own".

So they'll basically just make up their own legal justification?

reply to post by alldaylong



So which one decides? And how is that fair? .(house of lords)

reply to post by Senduko


House of Commons, where MP's sit and discuss.

House of Lords, where the "Lords" or those that the Government select as worthy of being granted "Lordships", sit and discuss basically what the MP's have just discussed. A sort of second tier of decision makers!

At least that is what I think it means! Any others offers??? Anyone.........?

Oh I was sort of right. Good.

reply to post by Kram09


This is a good sign imo, yesterday they were a 100% certain, today they have changed their tune, they are using this opportunity to save face, arguing the merits of a Syrian strike between themselves,this is an "out" for these politicians who have been caught bold faced lying for intervention with clearly no idea of the uproar this would cause.There's nothing that threatens their national security that they themselves are not guilty of with Syria, this kind of stuff has the potential to fracture governments.

dp

uk intelligence lost all credibility when they LIED about Iraq
we wont be fooled again

Originally posted by Senduko
I'm from Belgium, could any of you Brits give me just a short explanation,

difference between house of commons and house of lords?

The answers already provided are correct.

The Lords is a non elected review and checking function. In most circumstances legislation created in the commons is reviewed and amended/approved by the Lords. The Lords cannot ultimately prevent legislation from becoming law but they can delay it considerably (giving time for more public debate).

The system stops one political grouping getting absolute free reign with the legislation it creates. It also stops the 2nd house being obstructive on party political lines.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
The UK's Joint Intelligence Committee has unveiled its report into chemical weapons use in Syria.

It states that:

This judgement was made with the highest possible level of certainty following an exhaustive review by the Joint Intelligence Organisation of intelligence reports plus diplomatic and open sources . We think that there have been other attacks although we do not have the same degree of confidence in the evidence. A clear pattern of regime use has therefore been established.

Unlike previous attacks, the degree of open source reporting of CW use on 21 August has been considerable. As a result, there is little serious dispute that chemical attacks causing mass casualties on a larger scale than hitherto (including , we judge, at least 3 50 fatalities) took place.

J IC Report

The report also states that all of this information comes form open source intelligence and that the JIC does not agree with any claims that these attacks were committed by Rebel forces as they cannot find any evidence to support these claims.

In addition to this the UK government has also published another report which states that the use of force is justified on humanitarian grounds.

My current assessment of this situation is that NATO Forces will be seeing action in Syria by the end of next week pending the report from the UN weapons inspectors.

edit on 29-8-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-8-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

Sorry for the long copy quote, the important bit is emboldened and in the 4th para.

According to the BBC radio report earlier this evening, guess what constitutes the open source intelligence ?

Yep you guessed it, good old "U Tub" that ever reliable and current information mine. I am not in a position to question the validity of those videos nor would I want to, but, it did cross my mind, eating soap tends to make you foam at the mouth and probably writhe in pain?

If that is the foundation stone upon which we rest, prior to going to war, well I am amazed. I am even more amazed our upper echelon watched such stuff. Surprised they still deny UFO.s after seeing that factual one where a UFO is being escorted by a couple of fighter planes.

So after all GCHQ and NSA etc etc reading all our emails the best intel they have is, U Tub! (I know it has an e at the end!" Gawd help us if that is the best they have available.

Expect RT will let us know the exact details of any Russian counter attack?

A question was raised this morning and denied by Government spokesman, that the rush to do anything was as a response to the US. UK Brown nosing maybe. Why could this have not waited till Monday, why recall MP's 2 days early to just issue a statement basically saying, it is possible the Syrian Government used CW's (Chemical Weapons), after all it has happened before, 14 or 15 times before, and nobody has done much. Why now? Just because it was a bigger usage this time or is there another reason?

George Galloway MP, has made some very pertinent points, when he questioned the motives.

I just hope that if and when we venture into this conflict, it will be the people that are the ones that win.

I have my doubts though.