Surely one of the few decent aspects of religion should be to stop killings? The Islamics in Syria should find murderers and reject them from Islam. Both sides. If you kill, you are rejected from the religion. Far worse a crime than sipping a beer or having same gender sex?

Would anyone think, if positions were reversed, the ruling regime in Syria (currently rebels) would not use chemical weapons as eagerly as Assad?

This is what worries me; in civil wars, both sides are ghastly; we should not support one against the other.

JK2006 wrote:
This is what worries me; in civil wars, both sides are ghastly; we should not support one against the other.

"President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapons against the world's most vulnerable people," Kerry said.

"The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity," he said. "By any standard, it is inexcusable".

uk.reuters.com/article/2013/08/26/uk-syr...dUKBRE97K0AJ20130826

Writing in The Times, Tony Blair said it was vital to "take sides" against the Assad regime and in other regional disputes.

Mr Blair, who backed the United States in its controversial invasion of Iraq in 2003, said he understands the anguish of taking a decision to intervene in a foreign country.

He said: "After the long and painful campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, I understand every impulse to stay clear of the turmoil, to watch but not to intervene, to ratchet up language but not to engage in the hard, even harsh business of changing reality on the ground.

"But we have collectively to understand the consequences of wringing our hands instead of putting them to work.

On Syria, he wrote: "I hear people talking as if there was nothing we could do: the Syrian defence systems are too powerful, the issues too complex, and in any event, why take sides since they're all as bad as each other?

"But others are taking sides. They're not terrified of the prospect of intervention. They're intervening. To support an assault on civilians not seen since the dark days of Saddam.

"It is time we took a side: the side of the people who want what we want; who see our societies for all their faults as something to admire; who know that they should not be faced with a choice between tyranny and theocracy."

Conservative backbencher Robert Halfon agreed with Mr Blair's call for action on his blog.

The Harlow MP said: "Syria is not an isolated island in no-man's land. Whether we like it or not, what happens there has a huge impact on the wider Middle East, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, refugee flows and of course international terrorism.

"That doesn’t mean Britain should shoulder the main burden or even send troops on the ground.

"It does imply working with the United States and others to launch missile attacks on Assad’s chemical weapons capability, supplying weapons and technical know-how to rebel forces on the ground and supporting a no-fly zone as proposed by John McCain."

Mr Halfon also criticised those who believe military intervention may make the situation worse.

He said: "It is always quite amazing that those who are so against any kind of intervention, do it on the grounds of what might or might not happen in the future. ‘There might be massacres’ or ‘a Jihadist state’ etc.

"But all those things are happening now. In my book, the present is more important than the future, and if we can act to stop genocide and chemical attacks we should."

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-24024...nish-warn-brass.html

Seems the experts are mostly skeptical.

Pattaya wrote:
Seems the experts are mostly skeptical.

but, what, Pattaya, are the dangers of NOT taking action?

Encouraging more attacks by this disgusting regime?

Encouraging other unstable regimes - Korea etc - to use whatever weapons they want (whenever they want) ?

In The Know wrote:
Pattaya wrote:
Seems the experts are mostly skeptical.

but, what, Pattaya, are the dangers of NOT taking action?

Encouraging more attacks by this disgusting regime?

Encouraging other unstable regimes - Korea etc - to use whatever weapons they want (whenever they want) ?

In theory yes,but we have another Iraq situation here,we made the mess there by jumping to conclusions,as is obviously the case here,the UN hasn't even reported yet,and even before they arrived Yanks and Cranks (Cameron) had already decided their version of events were going to be acted on.
The lack of a UN Mandate is very worrying,expect to see Islamic Loonies benefiting from this,as indeed they have in Afghanistan/Iraq/Libya/Egypt etc.

It's right to act ... for humanitarian reasons alone.

We will not get a UN mandate as Russia will block it - but we don't need a mandate to save lives.

The western powers say this is not "regime change" (which they have to say) but any attack on Assad will, by its very nature, boost the freedom fighters, who are only a few miles away from the centre of Damascus anyway.

Most western powers have already said they recognise the opposition as the "new" government - anything which hastens the departure of Assad is welcome in my view (as, in the long-term it will save lives).

If there are unsavoury elements of the new government - which has never been proved - then thats OUR fault for not having offered assistance earlier (I said 18 months ago that if we didn't help them they would find someone who would !)

You can't have your cake and eat it ! You can't deny help then complain when they find help elsewhere - you have forfeited the right.

Taking out Assad's airforce will "even up" the war - and help bring it to an end ... which is surely what any civilised person would want?

No ITK: Killing more innocent Syrians will simply help some other nasty people take over from the last lot of nasty people, just like when we helped eject nasty SHAH and his horrid Secret Police (the equivalent of chemical weapons of mass destruction) and put in those nice Ayatollahs.

And Tunisia (falling apart) and Egypt (death and destruction) and Libya (killing returns)... Arab Spring? Like a painting of hell.

Send in doctors, medicine, peace makers... persuade the religious leaders to eject the wicked from the mosques... don't kill people.

JK2006 wrote:
Send in doctors, medicine, peace makers... persuade the religious leaders to eject the wicked from the mosques... don't kill people.

Tell that to Assad (do you think he will listen?)

JK2006 wrote:
just like when we helped eject nasty SHAH and his horrid Secret Police (the equivalent of chemical weapons of mass destruction) and put in those nice Ayatollahs.

We didn't eject the Shah - we propped him up against the wishes of his own people. (The Yanks eventually "rescued" him and flew him to the USA for "medical treatment")

When the people asked for help we ignored them (prefering our favour oppressor the Shah) ... so they turned for help elsewhere (just as they have done this time - because, again, we refused their requests for help).

You can't have your cake and eat it ! You can't deny help then complain when they find help elsewhere - you have forfeited the right.

When people complain (rightly) about the shit British regimes that allow incredible breaches of human rights and kill innocent people - be they protesting rebels or passing Brazilians or newspaper vendors - should outside major powers send rockets at the offending governments?

Yes, creeping invasions like the Nazis must be stopped but supporting one side in a civil war against another is very unwise indeed.

JK2006 wrote:
- should outside major powers send rockets at the offending governments?

No - because the UK people have a chance to replace their government (if they want to).

Why do you continually deny that right to others?

Because it's nothing to do with me - or you - how other countries run themselves. Or should other countries invade the UK because we don't allow a "sensible" method of government like military control? It's none of their business how we run the UK and it's none of ours how they run their countries.

JK2006 wrote:
Because it's nothing to do with me - or you - how other countries run themselves.

I agree, entirely .... which is why you have never seen a post from me advocating change in places such as Morocco or Saudi Arabian, where the populus seem (for now) happy with their "lot".

However, in countries such as Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Syria - where the population seem willing to put their own lives at risk rather than live under continued repression, I feel we have a moral obligation to help them.

Isn't it better that, when they win (which they will - just as the IRA / ANC and VietCong did) that they should see us as "friends" who helped them achieve their aims, rather than "enemies" who propped-up the dictators that were killing them?

That is of course what we did in Iran when we propped-up The Shah - no wonder they didn't like us when they finally got rid of him. If we had helped them sooner they may not have had to turn to the Ayatollahs for help.

Looking to the future is foolish; regimes may be friends, enemies or neutral entirely due to other events. No; I just feel it is wrong to supply arms and add to the death toll. Morally we should not interfere in the progress of other nations unless it's absolutely essential.

The Tunisian rebellion was internally inspired and has proved a mistake in many ways (though good in others). It was generally NOT violent and did not involve outside interference. I personally feel we should consider assisting Tunisia financially and economically if we can (I already do). But I would have been against siding with one or other regime and sending in troops or guns. I still feel, as this thread started, it's the Islamic leaders who can sort out this mess.