|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
@polis from wiki:
After 21 months of investigation, judge Juan del Olmo ruled Moroccan national Jamal Zougam guilty of physically carrying out the attack. The September 2007 sentence established no known mastermind nor direct al-Qaeda link.
|
On August 30 2013 22:33 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 22:16 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 30 2013 21:43 Zarahtra wrote:On August 30 2013 21:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 30 2013 21:09 Zarahtra wrote:On August 30 2013 21:02 revel8 wrote:On August 30 2013 08:40 Zaros wrote:On August 30 2013 08:20 revel8 wrote:On August 30 2013 08:07 Zaros wrote:On August 30 2013 08:05 revel8 wrote:
[quote]
Do you even understand what a three-line whip is? Obviously not. Cameron expected to win this vote under the three-line whip. It was mandatory to attend and to vote along party lines was expected VERY strongly. Failure to do so could lead to expulsion from the Party. This was essentially a mutiny in Cameron's own party (Conservative). Like I said, Cameron is such a weak PM. you realise there wasn't even a whipping operation he thought the watered down motion would be fine for labour and his rebels. Maybe you should be telling those MPs who are confirming a whip was used for this vote. theres a whip for every vote unless the leaders say its a free vote, there was no whipping operation though, the whips didn't try to persuade anyone they just left them all alone. John Reid has said it was a three-line whip vote. Labour peer Lord Reid of Cardowan, defence secretary under Tony Blair in 2005 and 2006, told BBC News last night, "It's unprecedented for a prime minister and deputy prime minister and a government with a majority to lose a vote on a three line whip, on a foreign affairs issue, which involves military action.
"It's certainly not within my living memory and it is therefore a massive blow to the Prime Minster himself, and the Foreign Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/youre-a-disgrace-michael-gove-shouts-at-mps-after-syria-vote-8790995.html It's always funny when people with power have a hissyfit when they realize a country is run by democracy not dictatorship. Lord Reid doesn't sound like he's throwing a hissy fit there, he sounds like he's very pleased but trying not to show it too much at the Tories getting such a rebuke from the Commons. Heck it might be the PR move USA especially is in desperate need of. USA isn't in desperate need of a PR move except on the internet, which means it is not in need of a PR move at all. That's just the sad consequence of the EU ignoring its citizens for almost ten years: the bureaucracy at Brussels and its enablers in European capitals really don't give a shit about the NSA or PRISM or any of it. They aren't concerned with European public opinion about America just as they aren't concerned with European public opinion about anything. Lord Reid isn't having a hissyfit there, no but Education Secretary Michael Gove is. And I'm not talking about PR move between EU and USA, which although USA needs to mend a lot of bridges(and don't kid yourself, it's not just a minority on the internet that is annoyed at USA). I'm talking about PR move towards the middle east, which USA is in desperate need of after the last 12 years. Why is the education secretary making statements about foreign policy -_- I don't know if the USA needs a PR move towards the Middle East. Its geopolitical importance is determined by how much importance it is given in Western capitals. The West (the public anyway) is also pretty disgusted with and tired of the Middle East, Obama is hopefully the last gasp of Westerners wanting to get up their elbows in Muslim messes. We seem to be moving in the long-term from engagement to containment at arm's length (keeping terrorists in the Middle East and killing them if they come after us and arresting them if they try to come here, past that, whatever), a good thing. It is just a minority on the internet that is annoyed at the USA in any meaningful way and even there it is only the tiniest bit meaningful, the unaccountable European aristocracy that survived the 19th century and the first half of the 20th re-invented itself with the EU and still holds the keys to power in most of the member nations don't give two shits whether it's 10% or 90% of the European masses that are annoyed at the USA. Or annoyed at anything. If European governments followed public opinion there would have been a major diplomatic crisis with the USA, instead it's a few statements of indignation and a promise of investigations... and move on to the next issue. Well the sad reality is that the US(and to lesser extend UK) is the only country with any real terrorist problems. There are ofcourse a lot of reasons behind this, but a big part of it is the last 12 years of fuck ups. Ofcourse if you are going to continue committing war crimes in Pakistan, Yemen etc etc, focusing on humanitarian work in Syria and helping the Syrian civilians won't change public appearance much, but it's atleast a start. If the USA wants those to terrorist attacks to stop, I don't think only time will be enough to heal the hatred a lot of middle eastern countries have towards USA.
Actually there are terrorist attacks on Russian and China as well as many other nations and by no means a small problem.
|
On August 30 2013 23:04 nunez wrote:
@polis from wiki:
After 21 months of investigation, judge Juan del Olmo ruled Moroccan national Jamal Zougam guilty of physically carrying out the attack. The September 2007 sentence established no known mastermind nor direct al-Qaeda link.
So? He was still killed for making film critical of Mohamed. It fails well within the definition of terrorism that was done for Islam.
And that supports my point anyway, it isn't simply a problem that is caused by war.
|
bomb them and leave. let the UN rebuild. i don't support genocide. but we aint the world police. its about time the UN grow some balls. kick russia and china out if they support chemical weapons.
|
On August 30 2013 23:13 JimSocks wrote:
bomb them and leave. let the UN rebuild. i don't support genocide. but we aint the world police. its about time the UN grow some balls. kick russia and china out if they support chemical weapons.
I always laugh at these type of comments
You do know that china owns the USA right???
|
On August 30 2013 22:51 Polis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 22:33 Zarahtra wrote:On August 30 2013 22:16 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 30 2013 21:43 Zarahtra wrote:On August 30 2013 21:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 30 2013 21:09 Zarahtra wrote:On August 30 2013 21:02 revel8 wrote:On August 30 2013 08:40 Zaros wrote:On August 30 2013 08:20 revel8 wrote:On August 30 2013 08:07 Zaros wrote:
[quote]
you realise there wasn't even a whipping operation he thought the watered down motion would be fine for labour and his rebels. Maybe you should be telling those MPs who are confirming a whip was used for this vote. theres a whip for every vote unless the leaders say its a free vote, there was no whipping operation though, the whips didn't try to persuade anyone they just left them all alone. John Reid has said it was a three-line whip vote. Labour peer Lord Reid of Cardowan, defence secretary under Tony Blair in 2005 and 2006, told BBC News last night, "It's unprecedented for a prime minister and deputy prime minister and a government with a majority to lose a vote on a three line whip, on a foreign affairs issue, which involves military action.
"It's certainly not within my living memory and it is therefore a massive blow to the Prime Minster himself, and the Foreign Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/youre-a-disgrace-michael-gove-shouts-at-mps-after-syria-vote-8790995.html It's always funny when people with power have a hissyfit when they realize a country is run by democracy not dictatorship. Lord Reid doesn't sound like he's throwing a hissy fit there, he sounds like he's very pleased but trying not to show it too much at the Tories getting such a rebuke from the Commons. Heck it might be the PR move USA especially is in desperate need of. USA isn't in desperate need of a PR move except on the internet, which means it is not in need of a PR move at all. That's just the sad consequence of the EU ignoring its citizens for almost ten years: the bureaucracy at Brussels and its enablers in European capitals really don't give a shit about the NSA or PRISM or any of it. They aren't concerned with European public opinion about America just as they aren't concerned with European public opinion about anything. Lord Reid isn't having a hissyfit there, no but Education Secretary Michael Gove is. And I'm not talking about PR move between EU and USA, which although USA needs to mend a lot of bridges(and don't kid yourself, it's not just a minority on the internet that is annoyed at USA). I'm talking about PR move towards the middle east, which USA is in desperate need of after the last 12 years. Why is the education secretary making statements about foreign policy -_- I don't know if the USA needs a PR move towards the Middle East. Its geopolitical importance is determined by how much importance it is given in Western capitals. The West (the public anyway) is also pretty disgusted with and tired of the Middle East, Obama is hopefully the last gasp of Westerners wanting to get up their elbows in Muslim messes. We seem to be moving in the long-term from engagement to containment at arm's length (keeping terrorists in the Middle East and killing them if they come after us and arresting them if they try to come here, past that, whatever), a good thing. It is just a minority on the internet that is annoyed at the USA in any meaningful way and even there it is only the tiniest bit meaningful, the unaccountable European aristocracy that survived the 19th century and the first half of the 20th re-invented itself with the EU and still holds the keys to power in most of the member nations don't give two shits whether it's 10% or 90% of the European masses that are annoyed at the USA. Or annoyed at anything. If European governments followed public opinion there would have been a major diplomatic crisis with the USA, instead it's a few statements of indignation and a promise of investigations... and move on to the next issue. Well he is not really making a statement but whining that people voted against their 'team'. Well the sad reality is that the US(and to lesser extend UK) is the only country with any real terrorist problems. There are ofcourse a lot of reasons behind this, but a big part of it is the last 12 years of fuck ups. Ofcourse if you are going to continue committing war crimes in Pakistan, Yemen etc etc, focusing on humanitarian work in Syria and helping the Syrian civilians won't change public appearance much, but it's atleast a start. There is plenty of Muslim terrorist attack all around the world, not only in the west. And most of it done on "infidel Muslims" by "real Muslims". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_terrorist_attacks#2010.E2.80.93currenthttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11978389And what does that have to do with any war crimes? "Van Gogh worked with the Somali-born writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali to produce the film Submission, which criticized the treatment of women in Islam and aroused controversy among Muslims. On 2 November 2004 he was assassinated by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/9157929/Al-Qaeda-attacks-in-Europe-since-September-11.htmlBiggest terrorist attack was in Spain: "March 11, 2004 – A similar, more deadly tragedy hits Madrid in Spain. A series of near-simultaneous explosions tear through trains carrying morning commuters in Madrid. Killing 191 people and injuring 1,800, the bombings are the worst terrorist attack to have hit Europe. The perpetrators claimed they were inspired by the work of al-Qaeda. " They want Islamic state, that is why the terrorist attack are in countries that don't partake in any middle east wars, like India or Thailand. Even if you send no armies to those countries they will hate you anyway for not following Islamism.
Good post. Somewhat shocking to see how ignorant some posters are on events in the world, and yet they try and lecture others. Russia and China also have issues with Terrorism. Not to mention Yemen, Sudan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Israel, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, India all have continuing issues.
|
On August 30 2013 22:51 Polis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 22:33 Zarahtra wrote:On August 30 2013 22:16 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 30 2013 21:43 Zarahtra wrote:On August 30 2013 21:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 30 2013 21:09 Zarahtra wrote:On August 30 2013 21:02 revel8 wrote:On August 30 2013 08:40 Zaros wrote:On August 30 2013 08:20 revel8 wrote:On August 30 2013 08:07 Zaros wrote:
[quote]
you realise there wasn't even a whipping operation he thought the watered down motion would be fine for labour and his rebels. Maybe you should be telling those MPs who are confirming a whip was used for this vote. theres a whip for every vote unless the leaders say its a free vote, there was no whipping operation though, the whips didn't try to persuade anyone they just left them all alone. John Reid has said it was a three-line whip vote. Labour peer Lord Reid of Cardowan, defence secretary under Tony Blair in 2005 and 2006, told BBC News last night, "It's unprecedented for a prime minister and deputy prime minister and a government with a majority to lose a vote on a three line whip, on a foreign affairs issue, which involves military action.
"It's certainly not within my living memory and it is therefore a massive blow to the Prime Minster himself, and the Foreign Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/youre-a-disgrace-michael-gove-shouts-at-mps-after-syria-vote-8790995.html It's always funny when people with power have a hissyfit when they realize a country is run by democracy not dictatorship. Lord Reid doesn't sound like he's throwing a hissy fit there, he sounds like he's very pleased but trying not to show it too much at the Tories getting such a rebuke from the Commons. Heck it might be the PR move USA especially is in desperate need of. USA isn't in desperate need of a PR move except on the internet, which means it is not in need of a PR move at all. That's just the sad consequence of the EU ignoring its citizens for almost ten years: the bureaucracy at Brussels and its enablers in European capitals really don't give a shit about the NSA or PRISM or any of it. They aren't concerned with European public opinion about America just as they aren't concerned with European public opinion about anything. Lord Reid isn't having a hissyfit there, no but Education Secretary Michael Gove is. And I'm not talking about PR move between EU and USA, which although USA needs to mend a lot of bridges(and don't kid yourself, it's not just a minority on the internet that is annoyed at USA). I'm talking about PR move towards the middle east, which USA is in desperate need of after the last 12 years. Why is the education secretary making statements about foreign policy -_- I don't know if the USA needs a PR move towards the Middle East. Its geopolitical importance is determined by how much importance it is given in Western capitals. The West (the public anyway) is also pretty disgusted with and tired of the Middle East, Obama is hopefully the last gasp of Westerners wanting to get up their elbows in Muslim messes. We seem to be moving in the long-term from engagement to containment at arm's length (keeping terrorists in the Middle East and killing them if they come after us and arresting them if they try to come here, past that, whatever), a good thing. It is just a minority on the internet that is annoyed at the USA in any meaningful way and even there it is only the tiniest bit meaningful, the unaccountable European aristocracy that survived the 19th century and the first half of the 20th re-invented itself with the EU and still holds the keys to power in most of the member nations don't give two shits whether it's 10% or 90% of the European masses that are annoyed at the USA. Or annoyed at anything. If European governments followed public opinion there would have been a major diplomatic crisis with the USA, instead it's a few statements of indignation and a promise of investigations... and move on to the next issue. Well he is not really making a statement but whining that people voted against their 'team'. Well the sad reality is that the US(and to lesser extend UK) is the only country with any real terrorist problems. There are ofcourse a lot of reasons behind this, but a big part of it is the last 12 years of fuck ups. Ofcourse if you are going to continue committing war crimes in Pakistan, Yemen etc etc, focusing on humanitarian work in Syria and helping the Syrian civilians won't change public appearance much, but it's atleast a start. There is plenty of Muslim terrorist attack all around the world, not only in the west. And most of it done on "infidel Muslims" by "real Muslims". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_terrorist_attacks#2010.E2.80.93currenthttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11978389And what does that have to do with any war crimes? "Van Gogh worked with the Somali-born writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali to produce the film Submission, which criticized the treatment of women in Islam and aroused controversy among Muslims. On 2 November 2004 he was assassinated by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/9157929/Al-Qaeda-attacks-in-Europe-since-September-11.htmlBiggest terrorist attack was in Spain: "March 11, 2004 – A similar, more deadly tragedy hits Madrid in Spain. A series of near-simultaneous explosions tear through trains carrying morning commuters in Madrid. Killing 191 people and injuring 1,800, the bombings are the worst terrorist attack to have hit Europe. The perpetrators claimed they were inspired by the work of al-Qaeda. " They want Islamic state, that is why the terrorist attack are in countries that don't partake in any middle east wars, like India or Thailand. Even if you send no armies to those countries they will hate you anyway for not following Islamism.
I think he is talking about drone strikes as war crimes maybe, since the US has carried them out in Yemen and Pakistan. As a US citizen, I don't really know who to believe. It seems plausible that people in those countries would say "US killed civilians" so they would have a safer haven for terrorists. Or they really could have been killed, but I don't know because I wasn't there.
The Islamists have been killing each other for centuries in the Middle East, so that's not surprising.
I feel like there is such information asymmetry (because there has to be) between the US citizens and the government/military. I can only hope that they make the right decisions in regards to Syria, and politicize as little as possible.
Edit:
On August 30 2013 23:19 winadil wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 23:13 JimSocks wrote:
bomb them and leave. let the UN rebuild. i don't support genocide. but we aint the world police. its about time the UN grow some balls. kick russia and china out if they support chemical weapons. I always laugh at these type of comments You do know that china owns the USA right???
Really? I haven't gotten my little red book in the mail yet.
|
Turkey in 'no doubt' Assad forces behind 'gas attack'
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has said intelligence gathered by Ankara left no doubt that the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were responsible for a poison gas attack near Damascus last week.
"From our point of view, totally based on our national intelligence and assessments by our national experts...There is no doubt that the regime is responsible," Davutoglu told reporters.
http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-08-28/syria-united-nations/
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-325023-turkey-says-obtained-intel-showing-assad-regime-behind-chemical-attack.html
The Turks could be significant in any international intervention. They have a huge army, much bigger than Syria's. They are on the border with Syria and so logistically are well placed to take military action.They are a secular State, and so will not be supportive of any Islamist factions (at least officially) and will not install an Islamist Syrian regime, post-Assad. As a Regional power it is in their National Interest to end the unstable situation in Syria.
Of course, Erdogan has also been having some domestic issues about him being too pro-Islamic for some Turks. Taking the citizen's focus away from domestic unrest by means of foreign wars is not uncommon.
The Turks have the means to act and it appears they have the will too.
Coincidentally, Chung, the PM of South Korea said today
“Turkey, a secular Muslim country, may serve as a good model for countries in the region in terms of its political stability and rising economy,” said Chung.
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-325024-s-korean-pm-appreciates-turkeys-efforts-in-syrian-crisis.html
|
On August 30 2013 22:16 DeepElemBlues wrote:
It is just a minority on the internet that is annoyed at the USA in any meaningful way and even there it is only the tiniest bit meaningful, the unaccountable European aristocracy that survived the 19th century and the first half of the 20th re-invented itself with the EU and still holds the keys to power in most of the member nations don't give two shits whether it's 10% or 90% of the European masses that are annoyed at the USA. Or annoyed at anything. If European governments followed public opinion there would have been a major diplomatic crisis with the USA, instead it's a few statements of indignation and a promise of investigations... and move on to the next issue.
What the fuck is this paranoid delusional American conspiracy bullshit doing on TL.
I can't tell whether you being willfully ignorant or are so wrapped in your own narrow world view you can't see anything that doesn't conform to it.
- "It is just a minority"
How do you know this? Evidence? Proof? Have you asked everyone? No, your pulling it out of your ass.
- "European aristocracy that survived the 19th century and the first half of the 20th re-invented itself with the EU"
Who are they? Name them. The monarchies and older establishments (such as the UK house of Lords) of Europe generally resent the EU from placing itself beyond there sovereignty. The fucking house of habsburg isn't still plotting diplomatic control of Europe.
|
On August 30 2013 23:24 crayhasissues wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 22:51 Polis wrote:On August 30 2013 22:33 Zarahtra wrote:On August 30 2013 22:16 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 30 2013 21:43 Zarahtra wrote:On August 30 2013 21:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 30 2013 21:09 Zarahtra wrote:On August 30 2013 21:02 revel8 wrote:On August 30 2013 08:40 Zaros wrote:On August 30 2013 08:20 revel8 wrote:
[quote]
Maybe you should be telling those MPs who are confirming a whip was used for this vote.
theres a whip for every vote unless the leaders say its a free vote, there was no whipping operation though, the whips didn't try to persuade anyone they just left them all alone. John Reid has said it was a three-line whip vote. Labour peer Lord Reid of Cardowan, defence secretary under Tony Blair in 2005 and 2006, told BBC News last night, "It's unprecedented for a prime minister and deputy prime minister and a government with a majority to lose a vote on a three line whip, on a foreign affairs issue, which involves military action.
"It's certainly not within my living memory and it is therefore a massive blow to the Prime Minster himself, and the Foreign Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/youre-a-disgrace-michael-gove-shouts-at-mps-after-syria-vote-8790995.html It's always funny when people with power have a hissyfit when they realize a country is run by democracy not dictatorship. Lord Reid doesn't sound like he's throwing a hissy fit there, he sounds like he's very pleased but trying not to show it too much at the Tories getting such a rebuke from the Commons. Heck it might be the PR move USA especially is in desperate need of. USA isn't in desperate need of a PR move except on the internet, which means it is not in need of a PR move at all. That's just the sad consequence of the EU ignoring its citizens for almost ten years: the bureaucracy at Brussels and its enablers in European capitals really don't give a shit about the NSA or PRISM or any of it. They aren't concerned with European public opinion about America just as they aren't concerned with European public opinion about anything. Lord Reid isn't having a hissyfit there, no but Education Secretary Michael Gove is. And I'm not talking about PR move between EU and USA, which although USA needs to mend a lot of bridges(and don't kid yourself, it's not just a minority on the internet that is annoyed at USA). I'm talking about PR move towards the middle east, which USA is in desperate need of after the last 12 years. Why is the education secretary making statements about foreign policy -_- I don't know if the USA needs a PR move towards the Middle East. Its geopolitical importance is determined by how much importance it is given in Western capitals. The West (the public anyway) is also pretty disgusted with and tired of the Middle East, Obama is hopefully the last gasp of Westerners wanting to get up their elbows in Muslim messes. We seem to be moving in the long-term from engagement to containment at arm's length (keeping terrorists in the Middle East and killing them if they come after us and arresting them if they try to come here, past that, whatever), a good thing. It is just a minority on the internet that is annoyed at the USA in any meaningful way and even there it is only the tiniest bit meaningful, the unaccountable European aristocracy that survived the 19th century and the first half of the 20th re-invented itself with the EU and still holds the keys to power in most of the member nations don't give two shits whether it's 10% or 90% of the European masses that are annoyed at the USA. Or annoyed at anything. If European governments followed public opinion there would have been a major diplomatic crisis with the USA, instead it's a few statements of indignation and a promise of investigations... and move on to the next issue. Well he is not really making a statement but whining that people voted against their 'team'. Well the sad reality is that the US(and to lesser extend UK) is the only country with any real terrorist problems. There are ofcourse a lot of reasons behind this, but a big part of it is the last 12 years of fuck ups. Ofcourse if you are going to continue committing war crimes in Pakistan, Yemen etc etc, focusing on humanitarian work in Syria and helping the Syrian civilians won't change public appearance much, but it's atleast a start. There is plenty of Muslim terrorist attack all around the world, not only in the west. And most of it done on "infidel Muslims" by "real Muslims". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_terrorist_attacks#2010.E2.80.93currenthttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11978389And what does that have to do with any war crimes? "Van Gogh worked with the Somali-born writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali to produce the film Submission, which criticized the treatment of women in Islam and aroused controversy among Muslims. On 2 November 2004 he was assassinated by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/9157929/Al-Qaeda-attacks-in-Europe-since-September-11.htmlBiggest terrorist attack was in Spain: "March 11, 2004 – A similar, more deadly tragedy hits Madrid in Spain. A series of near-simultaneous explosions tear through trains carrying morning commuters in Madrid. Killing 191 people and injuring 1,800, the bombings are the worst terrorist attack to have hit Europe. The perpetrators claimed they were inspired by the work of al-Qaeda. " They want Islamic state, that is why the terrorist attack are in countries that don't partake in any middle east wars, like India or Thailand. Even if you send no armies to those countries they will hate you anyway for not following Islamism. I think he is talking about drone strikes as war crimes maybe, since the US has carried them out in Yemen and Pakistan. As a US citizen, I don't really know who to believe. It seems plausible that people in those countries would say "US killed civilians" so they would have a safer haven for terrorists. Or they really could have been killed, but I don't know because I wasn't there. The Islamists have been killing each other for centuries in the Middle East, so that's not surprising. I feel like there is such information asymmetry (because there has to be) between the US citizens and the government/military. I can only hope that they make the right decisions in regards to Syria, and politicize as little as possible.
He was saying that there is no real terrorism threat if you don't attack middle east, but that simply isn't true.
That doesn't mean that you should attack countries in the middle east.
|
On August 30 2013 23:37 Polis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 23:24 crayhasissues wrote:On August 30 2013 22:51 Polis wrote:On August 30 2013 22:33 Zarahtra wrote:On August 30 2013 22:16 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 30 2013 21:43 Zarahtra wrote:On August 30 2013 21:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 30 2013 21:09 Zarahtra wrote:On August 30 2013 21:02 revel8 wrote:On August 30 2013 08:40 Zaros wrote:
[quote]
theres a whip for every vote unless the leaders say its a free vote, there was no whipping operation though, the whips didn't try to persuade anyone they just left them all alone. John Reid has said it was a three-line whip vote. Labour peer Lord Reid of Cardowan, defence secretary under Tony Blair in 2005 and 2006, told BBC News last night, "It's unprecedented for a prime minister and deputy prime minister and a government with a majority to lose a vote on a three line whip, on a foreign affairs issue, which involves military action.
"It's certainly not within my living memory and it is therefore a massive blow to the Prime Minster himself, and the Foreign Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/youre-a-disgrace-michael-gove-shouts-at-mps-after-syria-vote-8790995.html It's always funny when people with power have a hissyfit when they realize a country is run by democracy not dictatorship. Lord Reid doesn't sound like he's throwing a hissy fit there, he sounds like he's very pleased but trying not to show it too much at the Tories getting such a rebuke from the Commons. Heck it might be the PR move USA especially is in desperate need of. USA isn't in desperate need of a PR move except on the internet, which means it is not in need of a PR move at all. That's just the sad consequence of the EU ignoring its citizens for almost ten years: the bureaucracy at Brussels and its enablers in European capitals really don't give a shit about the NSA or PRISM or any of it. They aren't concerned with European public opinion about America just as they aren't concerned with European public opinion about anything. Lord Reid isn't having a hissyfit there, no but Education Secretary Michael Gove is. And I'm not talking about PR move between EU and USA, which although USA needs to mend a lot of bridges(and don't kid yourself, it's not just a minority on the internet that is annoyed at USA). I'm talking about PR move towards the middle east, which USA is in desperate need of after the last 12 years. Why is the education secretary making statements about foreign policy -_- I don't know if the USA needs a PR move towards the Middle East. Its geopolitical importance is determined by how much importance it is given in Western capitals. The West (the public anyway) is also pretty disgusted with and tired of the Middle East, Obama is hopefully the last gasp of Westerners wanting to get up their elbows in Muslim messes. We seem to be moving in the long-term from engagement to containment at arm's length (keeping terrorists in the Middle East and killing them if they come after us and arresting them if they try to come here, past that, whatever), a good thing. It is just a minority on the internet that is annoyed at the USA in any meaningful way and even there it is only the tiniest bit meaningful, the unaccountable European aristocracy that survived the 19th century and the first half of the 20th re-invented itself with the EU and still holds the keys to power in most of the member nations don't give two shits whether it's 10% or 90% of the European masses that are annoyed at the USA. Or annoyed at anything. If European governments followed public opinion there would have been a major diplomatic crisis with the USA, instead it's a few statements of indignation and a promise of investigations... and move on to the next issue. Well he is not really making a statement but whining that people voted against their 'team'. Well the sad reality is that the US(and to lesser extend UK) is the only country with any real terrorist problems. There are ofcourse a lot of reasons behind this, but a big part of it is the last 12 years of fuck ups. Ofcourse if you are going to continue committing war crimes in Pakistan, Yemen etc etc, focusing on humanitarian work in Syria and helping the Syrian civilians won't change public appearance much, but it's atleast a start. There is plenty of Muslim terrorist attack all around the world, not only in the west. And most of it done on "infidel Muslims" by "real Muslims". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_terrorist_attacks#2010.E2.80.93currenthttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11978389And what does that have to do with any war crimes? "Van Gogh worked with the Somali-born writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali to produce the film Submission, which criticized the treatment of women in Islam and aroused controversy among Muslims. On 2 November 2004 he was assassinated by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/9157929/Al-Qaeda-attacks-in-Europe-since-September-11.htmlBiggest terrorist attack was in Spain: "March 11, 2004 – A similar, more deadly tragedy hits Madrid in Spain. A series of near-simultaneous explosions tear through trains carrying morning commuters in Madrid. Killing 191 people and injuring 1,800, the bombings are the worst terrorist attack to have hit Europe. The perpetrators claimed they were inspired by the work of al-Qaeda. " They want Islamic state, that is why the terrorist attack are in countries that don't partake in any middle east wars, like India or Thailand. Even if you send no armies to those countries they will hate you anyway for not following Islamism. I think he is talking about drone strikes as war crimes maybe, since the US has carried them out in Yemen and Pakistan. As a US citizen, I don't really know who to believe. It seems plausible that people in those countries would say "US killed civilians" so they would have a safer haven for terrorists. Or they really could have been killed, but I don't know because I wasn't there. The Islamists have been killing each other for centuries in the Middle East, so that's not surprising. I feel like there is such information asymmetry (because there has to be) between the US citizens and the government/military. I can only hope that they make the right decisions in regards to Syria, and politicize as little as possible. He was saying that there is no real terrorism threat if you don't attack middle east, but that simply isn't true. That doesn't mean that you should attack countries in the middle east.
I was not saying that, don't put words in my mouth. I will answer your post when I get home from work
|
On August 30 2013 23:34 revel8 wrote:Show nested quote +Turkey in 'no doubt' Assad forces behind 'gas attack'
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has said intelligence gathered by Ankara left no doubt that the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were responsible for a poison gas attack near Damascus last week.
"From our point of view, totally based on our national intelligence and assessments by our national experts...There is no doubt that the regime is responsible," Davutoglu told reporters. http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-08-28/syria-united-nations/http://www.todayszaman.com/news-325023-turkey-says-obtained-intel-showing-assad-regime-behind-chemical-attack.htmlThe Turks could be significant in any international intervention. They have a huge army, much bigger than Syria's. They are on the border with Syria and so logistically are well placed to take military action.They are a secular State, and so will not be supportive of any Islamist factions (at least officially) and will not install an Islamist Syrian regime, post-Assad. As a Regional power it is in their National Interest to end the unstable situation in Syria. Of course, Erdogan has also been having some domestic issues about him being too pro-Islamic for some Turks. Taking the citizen's focus away from domestic unrest by means of foreign wars is not uncommon. The Turks have the means to act and it appears they have the will too. Coincidentally, Chung, the PM of South Korea said today Show nested quote +
“Turkey, a secular Muslim country, may serve as a good model for countries in the region in terms of its political stability and rising economy,” said Chung.
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-325024-s-korean-pm-appreciates-turkeys-efforts-in-syrian-crisis.html
Turkey would be the best country to deal with the issue. They are closer, have legitimate reasons to do so since it is happening on their border and do not have the stigma of "western" imperialism attached to them. I would much rather they get involved with US logistical support than the US attacking directly.
|
Military officials said this week that the Russian Navy is dispatching several ships to the Eastern Mediterranean. But analysts said the small Russian force, dwarfed by the U.S. naval presence there, is mainly symbolic. Militarily, the most it is likely to do is provide security in the event Russia evacuates the small resupply base it maintains in the Syrian port of Tartous, analysts said.
Source
|
On August 30 2013 23:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 23:34 revel8 wrote:Turkey in 'no doubt' Assad forces behind 'gas attack'
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has said intelligence gathered by Ankara left no doubt that the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were responsible for a poison gas attack near Damascus last week.
"From our point of view, totally based on our national intelligence and assessments by our national experts...There is no doubt that the regime is responsible," Davutoglu told reporters. http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-08-28/syria-united-nations/http://www.todayszaman.com/news-325023-turkey-says-obtained-intel-showing-assad-regime-behind-chemical-attack.htmlThe Turks could be significant in any international intervention. They have a huge army, much bigger than Syria's. They are on the border with Syria and so logistically are well placed to take military action.They are a secular State, and so will not be supportive of any Islamist factions (at least officially) and will not install an Islamist Syrian regime, post-Assad. As a Regional power it is in their National Interest to end the unstable situation in Syria. Of course, Erdogan has also been having some domestic issues about him being too pro-Islamic for some Turks. Taking the citizen's focus away from domestic unrest by means of foreign wars is not uncommon. The Turks have the means to act and it appears they have the will too. Coincidentally, Chung, the PM of South Korea said today
“Turkey, a secular Muslim country, may serve as a good model for countries in the region in terms of its political stability and rising economy,” said Chung.
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-325024-s-korean-pm-appreciates-turkeys-efforts-in-syrian-crisis.html Turkey would be the best country to deal with the issue. They are closer, have legitimate reasons to do so since it is happening on their border and do not have the stigma of "western" imperialism attached to them. I would much rather they get involved with US logistical support than the US attacking directly.
I wonder how that would go down. Does Syria have the means to reach Turkey with chemical weapons? I assume that if they did it would be a significant deterrent, so perhaps they don't.
|
On August 30 2013 23:53 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 23:41 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2013 23:34 revel8 wrote:Turkey in 'no doubt' Assad forces behind 'gas attack'
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has said intelligence gathered by Ankara left no doubt that the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were responsible for a poison gas attack near Damascus last week.
"From our point of view, totally based on our national intelligence and assessments by our national experts...There is no doubt that the regime is responsible," Davutoglu told reporters. http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-08-28/syria-united-nations/http://www.todayszaman.com/news-325023-turkey-says-obtained-intel-showing-assad-regime-behind-chemical-attack.htmlThe Turks could be significant in any international intervention. They have a huge army, much bigger than Syria's. They are on the border with Syria and so logistically are well placed to take military action.They are a secular State, and so will not be supportive of any Islamist factions (at least officially) and will not install an Islamist Syrian regime, post-Assad. As a Regional power it is in their National Interest to end the unstable situation in Syria. Of course, Erdogan has also been having some domestic issues about him being too pro-Islamic for some Turks. Taking the citizen's focus away from domestic unrest by means of foreign wars is not uncommon. The Turks have the means to act and it appears they have the will too. Coincidentally, Chung, the PM of South Korea said today
“Turkey, a secular Muslim country, may serve as a good model for countries in the region in terms of its political stability and rising economy,” said Chung.
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-325024-s-korean-pm-appreciates-turkeys-efforts-in-syrian-crisis.html Turkey would be the best country to deal with the issue. They are closer, have legitimate reasons to do so since it is happening on their border and do not have the stigma of "western" imperialism attached to them. I would much rather they get involved with US logistical support than the US attacking directly. I wonder how that would go down. Does Syria have the means to reach Turkey with chemical weapons? I assume that if they did it would be a significant deterrent, so perhaps they don't.
If I were Turkey, I wouldn't care about that part and just accept that having chemical weapons being lobbed around on their border is just bad. They are no joke and anyone willing to use them on their own soil is not someone you want as a neighbor. The worse the conflict gets, the likely that these weapons are going to be used or thrown around. They are super dangerous and people do not know the long term effects they would have on any region they were used on. Plus the situation with refugees is another problem for Turkey.
As the PM of Korea said, Turkey is a model for a secular Muslim country and they are the best equipped to deal with the issues in Syria. If the US wants to end the conflict, we should be looking for what support Turkey needs to get involved, rather than trying to airstrike our way to a resolution.
|
On August 30 2013 23:19 winadil wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 23:13 JimSocks wrote:
bomb them and leave. let the UN rebuild. i don't support genocide. but we aint the world police. its about time the UN grow some balls. kick russia and china out if they support chemical weapons. I always laugh at these type of comments You do know that china owns the USA right???
Its almost as stupid as your post.
|
I just hope nobody starts any attacks until UN has a chance to show their report of the investigations. And if they report that Syrian government didn't do this attacks I hope nobody attacks them. In that case they would be helping "rebels" that by many reports are actually led by Islamic terrorist organizations that would make the country 100x worse then it is now and just be a new Afganistan.
|
On August 30 2013 23:34 revel8 wrote:Show nested quote +Turkey in 'no doubt' Assad forces behind 'gas attack'
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has said intelligence gathered by Ankara left no doubt that the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were responsible for a poison gas attack near Damascus last week.
"From our point of view, totally based on our national intelligence and assessments by our national experts...There is no doubt that the regime is responsible," Davutoglu told reporters. http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-08-28/syria-united-nations/http://www.todayszaman.com/news-325023-turkey-says-obtained-intel-showing-assad-regime-behind-chemical-attack.htmlThe Turks could be significant in any international intervention. They have a huge army, much bigger than Syria's. They are on the border with Syria and so logistically are well placed to take military action.They are a secular State, and so will not be supportive of any Islamist factions (at least officially) and will not install an Islamist Syrian regime, post-Assad. As a Regional power it is in their National Interest to end the unstable situation in Syria. Of course, Erdogan has also been having some domestic issues about him being too pro-Islamic for some Turks. Taking the citizen's focus away from domestic unrest by means of foreign wars is not uncommon. The Turks have the means to act and it appears they have the will too. Coincidentally, Chung, the PM of South Korea said today Show nested quote +
“Turkey, a secular Muslim country, may serve as a good model for countries in the region in terms of its political stability and rising economy,” said Chung.
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-325024-s-korean-pm-appreciates-turkeys-efforts-in-syrian-crisis.html
The current turkish government is a moderate islamistic regime and has been pushing for war from day 1. Furthermore they are sunnis and want to reduce the shiite(alawit) influence in the whole region. I doubt that Israel would allow a turkish controlled syria after the disputes in the last few years.
|
I had the misfortune to flip through the BBC again today, through a documentary report with the headline “The World has failed our Nation”, in which various Syrian civilians allegedly caught in the crossfire of the war are shown, sanguinary images juxtaposed with interviews conducted with a few English-speaking Syrians emotionally telling the world how it had "failed Syria.” It is of course a false image, a manufactured image, which anyone with the least psychological discernment could see through. But it is also an image which now dominates the Western journalism and consequently imagination about what is happening in that country.
|
On August 30 2013 04:18 HeatEXTEND wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 00:59 BRaegO wrote:
I really wish for once it would listen to the people...
Believe me, the US isn't the only country with that problem  .
When is our government going to realize that our own country is hurting bad and has been for quite awhile. I'm not saying don't help people, I'm just saying they really need to sort out their priorities. :/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
