UK has new Syria chemical evidence - David Cameron

reply to post by stormdancer777


None of the above. Do you have another option?

Cameron can say whatever he likes on this Syria lark, we all know that he and his fellow pig-people are self-serving liars. No-one believes anything he says any more.

Whenever Cameron speaks nowdays, you will see the UK population turning away and refusing to listen. He is up there with Maggie as the two most hated PM's.

When politicians deliberately and shamelessly lie to us to achieve whatever goal, it is then that we realise we are being taken for prize mugs, and have been from day one.

When Cameron first popped up as Tory leader, was there any clue then that he had intentions of inflicting such misery on UK citizens by taking away assistance for disabled and the sick, by creating ridiculous unemployment and forcing people into unpaid workfare, creating homelessness, and by taking our country into an unnecessary war? Nope. Not a hint. There wouldn't have been a snowball's chance in Hell of him being PM if he had. He lied his way to being PM.

So now Cameron can GO TELL IT TO HIS MOTHER. We're not listening to any more spew coming from his mouth - we just want him OUT.

This Syria thing is yet another nail in his coffin lid.

Roll on 2015.

reply to post by Rosinitiate


Its a glitch of some sort, the other day I had 17million stars and thousands of karma, its not just me a few other members also, the mods are aware of it. Must have something to do with the new site.

I'm getting royally pissed off with this now.

It's pretty straight forward - if the UK, USA, France, Israel, or any nation has evidence that helps identify exactly who has committed chemical attacks then this evidence should be presented to the UN and the Security Council.
If that evidence is solid and reliable then it will help frame a suitable response.

Most sides of this Sunni / Shia dispute are particularly amoral and it seems responsible for some barbaric atrocities - how our governments can differentiate one from the other is beyond me.
They fail to see the hypocrisy is singling out the Assad regime for it's use of chemical weapons whilst blatantly ignoring the use of those self-same weapons by elements within the rebels.

The hypocrisy is increased by their condemnation of Assad for breaking international law and convention yet they refuse to follow the self same international law and convention in their pursuit to 'punish' Assad.

The priority must surely to stop the killing of innocent civilians, be it by bullets or gas - punishment can be sought in accordance with international law once the killing stops.

Mixed in with the usual public rhetoric and spin both Russia and Iran have made slightly conciliatory overtones which seem to have been ignored whilst Obama continues with hawkish and aggressive posturing - surely his administration has a more diplomatic approach and understanding in private?

The UK will not get involved in Syria. The risk is simply to high. Cameron is well aware that should he do something like this, the Tooting Popular Front will rise up and take over parliament.

reply to post by Scorchio


It's like everyone has tunnel vision. If you look around you'll begin to see that almost every country that the West is invading, has a Government owned central bank, not a private one like in the US. Syria, along with Iran, hold Government controlled Central Banks.

From this I think everyone can start to "get it". It looks like once the West installs it's own central bank in the country it just invaded and destroyed, they basically own it, just like the US is owned by the Federal Reserve.

So it looks like Syria is going to fall, then Iran and then maybe even Africa after that. I'm playing arm chair general here a bit but that seems like that's the case. Invade every country that you do not control yet by a private central bank, install your own, and then leave.

Pretty brilliant. This way I don't even think you have to keep a large military force there, all you have to do is control the economy and the money supply and you got them by the balls.

Anyway I noticed your signature. You got that from Bill Hicks right?

Originally posted by justwokeup
reply to post by rigel4

 

So the new evidence is that Sarin was used. This agrees with what the Russians just said.

However the Russian argument based on their chemical analysis is that it was most likely the rebels (as the the UN concluded in the previous incident).

I didn't read anything new from Mr Cameron on the subject of who did it. Where is the detailed findings explaining that the analysis supports use of industrially developed substances consistent with use in the strategic weapon of a nation state.

Cameron looks a desperate man and the media war drum beating in the UK is now reaching levels of parody.

On another note, the attempt to link 'willingness to invade countries' with trade and economic success is interesting. Osborne was at it earlier and now Cameron is joining in. I suppose somebody forgot to tell post war Japan, Germany and South Korea about that.

Many witnesses say the chemical weapons were a rebel stockpile that came from the Saudis. They also think that this particular incident was an accidental detonation of one or more of the devices, though I think they may be wrong about that, as none of them claimed to bear witness to the release.