UK Inteligance Report on Syria Confirms Assad used Chemical Weapons

Originally posted by Senduko
reply to post by alldaylong

 

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

The House Of Lords acts as a checks and balance over The Commons.
Any laws that are passed are made in The House Of Commons.
The House Of Lords is purely a debating chamber. Even though Bills have to go through the House Of Lords before they reach the Commons, any decisions made by The Lords can be over ruled by The Commons.

Cleggy right now in parliament calling out hearsay and social media as the evidence for war.

We are in some mad parallel universe now. Jeezus.

Currently playing this little number over the debate as Nick Clegg prattles on.

Lol that's a wierd system you guys have

So the house of lords is kinda like the failsafe? Interesting one would expect the house of "lords" had more power.

Thanks for the answers

It's was on UTube, so must be kosher.

reply to post by dowot


Yes i know what constitutes open source intelligence although it is a little more than just a quick Google its based on analysis of current events by experts and consolidating all intelligence to build up a picture.

You can bet that the JIC have also taken into account other intelligence products including SIGINT. The reason this is probably not mentioned in the report is because its much easier to say "this is what the open source intelligence leads us to believe" than it is to say "we have some secret information that leads us to believe x,y and z but we cant tell you what".

Sure we can believe these known liars again!

Remember Colon Powell at the UN swearing to God “Saddam had WMD’S

The CIA head “It’s a slam dunk”

In the Libya war the same people were caught in numerous lies

So now this op wants to believe the British!

They went along WITH ALL THE LIES BEFORE
And provided many of their own

What makes you think they are telling the truth now?

And that they really care about ARAB civilians when they are responsible for almost a million Arab civilian deaths in Iraq.

It's people like this who don't learn from past mistakes and they rely on to continue to dupe the populace

Originally posted by sueloujo
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.

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

Originally posted by Dianec

Originally posted by sueloujo
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.

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

Can you explain how it works there - what is the point of them voting for something if Cameron doesn't have to listen? I can look it up but since you understand it better hoping someone can explain. Thanks.

He does and he doesn't. The prime minister can launch a war with the Royal Prerogative in the face of a parliamentary no vote on the topic but the government would likely fall as a consequence.

At any time if a majority in parliament votes 'no confidence' the government falls. New election must occur.

They said exactly the same thing about WMD's in Iraq.

The simple fact that they "ruled out any other alternative" shows this is pure propaganda.

Because hell, Im not in the "intelligence community" but even I have found suggestive evidence supporting non-government use of CW's. Right here on ATS.

I dont buy any "official" report anymore.

Look how long it took to find out that the Hillsborough disaster was a cover up, and that by comparison to a march into WW3, is minute.

How many "reports and inquiries" did it take for the truth to come out?

20 years worth.

The Jimmy Saville scandal nearly blew the lid on estabishment and institutional paedophilia rings, but for now it seems that scandal has been contained...YET AGAIN!!!

Forgive me for being cynical.... I have my reasons.

reply to post by justwokeup


Thank you for answering that. I just got the news that they voted no strong arm intervention so it sounds like that will stick. Doesn't mean the US has to follow suit though.

I think they are talking a storm, comparing notes and voting... and they are still going to go anyway. Wouldn't be the first time.

In the US, O-bomb-a has said something about just "firing a shot across their bow" and that is pure BS since a shot across the bow only hits water and does no damage. I also hear it being called a "strike"... just one? Like hell.

And if we start something they say, then we must go all the way...

this is the waiting phase like before Iraqi Freedom. Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to vacate but waited longer to wear them down psychologically. Every Syrian soldier is on sleepless edge right now, starting awake at the slightest sound. After they are exhausted and dead tired, the cruise missiles will come, hugging the treetops.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Quite frankly I don't give a feck what UK 'intelligence' says, the mandate is with the UN. it's up to the UN to open their gubs, and that's what the member states are for, including the UK. UN inspectors are on the ground, and have not yet reported.

an exhaustive review by the Joint Intelligence Organisation of intelligence reports plus diplomatic and open sources

An exhaustive review? and how long did it take them to do this exhaustive review?, about a week.
If they can do an exhaustive review in a week then they must not have had much "evidence" to review.
With such a small amount of "evidence" to review how can they be so certain that they have seen enough evidence to make a decision?
The U.N. inspectors who are on the site haven`t even finished collecting evidence so we know that the JIO hasn`t exhaustively reviewed that evidence yet.