Shellharbour red’s profile

It may be true that chemical weapons were used. the latest theory is that the syrian govt. bombed theie own poeple and it was them who had drums of the chemical weapons and the bombs fell on them, hence not a wide spread of the gas

If it wasn`t so tragic it would be laughable. The U. S. calls for action to be taken against Syria because (they used chemical weapons)!.
Very short memories they (U. S). have. From 1955 to 1975 the U. S. launched what was considered a chemical war against Vietnam and Cambodia killing 400,000 mostly civilians with Agent Orange, White phosphorous and Napalm!. Leaving a legacy of one million people disabled by these chemicals and after effects (childbirth defects).
What a thoroughly evil country would do that and conveniently forget, playing the worlds moral guardians.
Bep Kororoti.

Mrs E the short answer is the usa are protecting their interests ie israel and puppet leaders who are favorable to the usa.

There is no justification for invading a foreign country. As long as the problem in any country is an internal one then said country should be left alone. If the people really disagree with their government/governance then it is up to them to do something about it.
However the situation in Syria reeks of foreign involvement and in my eyes the plotted destabilization of countries is just an unofficial invasion.
Wish strength to our Syrian brothers and sisters and a swift end to imperialism for the sake of all humankind.
Zari

The planned attack of Syria will go ahead, I have no doubt about that.

The Governments/ 'controllers' want us to believe that this time every precaution is being taken and that only as a last resort will an attack actually happen.

I can almost guarantee that in a few weeks/ months time, Milliband will be in the press saying, 'well forceful action was obviously not our primary intention, just look at that first vote, but Assad has left us no choice'.

In the future they can use that first vote to show how they supposedly didn't want to attack in order to avoid another Iraq, where their desire to go in and destroy the country was so obvious.

They're trying to be more subtle about it this time.

Even if it's not made public that we're going to invade, you can sure as sh*t bet that there are already MI6 et al. there now to further destabilise the country and the Assad regime.

ConspiracyKen

Franky, I don't know too much about the Middle East either but it does seem to be a cauldron of different Politics, Cultures and Religions. Throw in the crude oil with the wealth that brings and its very difficult to know if America's humanitarian intervention is as honourable as they would have us believe.

From what I can see Syria's allies, Russia and Iran are warning against any intervention stating there would be 'catastrophic consequences' and have said it would be a 'grave violation of international law'. Iran have, in the past, threatened to attack Israel in return.

We would all love to see world peace but whilst greed, power and evil exists, it won't happen.

America seems hellbent on 'intervening' unfortunately, I'm not sure what their true reasons are ~ Mrs E

30 Aug 2013 17:14:53
I've no support for either side. Assad's just another dictator who's outlived his usefulness and most of the rebels are aq types who we've used Assad to suppress and they'd be as brutal if not worse. But I do feel Ed has scored an own goal here. Yes he gets a small political victory over Dave, but its a victory based on people dying. let's not lose sight of that. Whoever is doing the killing people are still dying. And the sight of Labour mps cheering a political victory was repugnant. Cameron can and will play that card in the future how he the nasty tory tried to be humanitarian, and fluffy cuddly labour supported the dictator. Never mind the real agenda that's how Cameron will dress it up and the Murdoch media will spin it. Meanwhile the slaughter continues, Assad had dispersed his forces, and now we have stories of a school being napalmed. Are those mps still cheering? i'm not advocating getting dragged in to another mess especially for underhand reasons. But on a simple moral basis should we stand back and see this turn into another Bosnia or Rwanda? If we do intervene ut has to be for the right reasons and to impose a peace settlement.

Agreed mrs E, from what I can make out and by know means I am a expert on the middle east but the middle east is a melting pot of religions and ethnic divides in one country never mind the whole of the middle east, but one thing they all agree on is intervention from the west ie usa.
this voting not to bomb is only a delaying tactic the usa will draft in some minor nation like albania and call it a nato attack.

Don't get me wrong the use of chemical weapons is an atrocity and someone should be held accountable.

However David Cameron, by his own admission, is not 100% sure it was/is Assad.

UK and US intervention, did they intervene with Mugabe and his brutality? As soon as there is any destabilisation in the Middle East which could affect the oil supply then they take the moral high ground.

I hate war of any kind and i'm glad Cameron lost, this time. What about other Arab Nations, where are they and why can't they intervene?

The UN has not finished any investigation and the evidence is sparse and inconclusive. ~ Mrs E

A 10 minute clip detailing the evidence of syrian rebels using chemical weapons

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMcYdqL6mjs

Don't get me wrong I am more than happy miliband said no, and I was a pleasure seeing cameron stuttering and flapping as he made his speech and answered questions knowing he was left out to dry and that was the final nail in his political coffin, but let's get one straight about miliband he is just as much as a zionist as cameron and he knew it would be political suicide if he went along with the PM on this knowing 90% of the people do not want to get involved in another middle east so called civil war, miliband knows the fallout of the blair weapons of mass destruction and will only go in with something concrete, as we know syria/egypt/libya are a premeditated cia/mi6 mossad funded terrorist attack to distable the middle east.

Ebola is definitely a candidate for weaponisation. HIV however must have been the brainchild of a very patient schemer.
ForzaRed

I have come to the conclusion for a good few years that man made viruses like aids/ebola etc were hatched by the nazi scientist in ww2 and the kabul planned when to use it.

Haven't read the book in all honesty, but I do believe western medicine is wrong. Focusing on understanding chemical reactions in the microcosm of the human body, while ignoring the macrocosm of energetic reactions results in unsound theories.
Theories that depend on fixed systems and only apply to specific cases, seeing as most variables in the relevant equations are either dismissed as unimportant or are not evident by observing the system on that level. This in turn gives rise to phenomena that cannot be explained by the proponents of said established theory. In this case the Placebo effect and the observer/observed effect.
Currently there is a resurgence of eastern medicinal practices and old world medicines which will benefit humankind greatly.
Zari