Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?

[VictorCharlie]

Yes, and your government has also used nuclear bombs, napalm and phosporous. It doesn't matter what your government tells you is okay as it is clear that your government doesn't care about what is okay. Your government tortures, renditions and lies to invade other countries and that is the sector that you have signed up for. Now how any of that can provide a legal framework for anything is insane. I am am sure Hitler had a legal team telling him he was well within his rights etc.

Law is irrelevant as compared to what is moral. Most people would argue that the war in Iraq was wrong and on that basis alone, it doesn't matter about legality. Most would agree on phosphorous too. A country like America talking about chemicals and getting involved in another countries civil war is a joke and not a funny one.

America is the bogeyman and it doesn't take me to make it that way. I am a marginal person, but practically every English and American person I have read is condemning England and America and at the end of the day you are too. We just disagree on phosphorous which any chemist would tell you has all the hallmarks of a chemical weapon. Legalese doesn't hide basic science.

Despite your 2/3 of non-sequiter and hyperbole if you don't see that there is a fundamental difference in the purpose and capability of WP compared to nerve/blister agents then you are simply being willfully ignorant in order to validate your own world view. I do agree with one point though. Law is irrelevant compared to morality and war has nothing to do with morality. It is about killing and applying rules to how and when two groups of people decide to kill each other is pretty moronic.

[Gandalf]

Chemical weapons that kill 150 or ordinary weapons that kill 50,000? I don't really see the need to distinguish in the way that William Hague does. White phosphorous is not an ordinary weapon when used to kill civilians, though America and Israel would perhaps like it to be. Regardless, Israel did use it. Syria's chemical weapons are still largely in the realm of propaganda than anything tenable.

As for Greenbeanz, I am not trying to score points. I am posting a political thread on a boxing forum, I am expressing my honest point of view. I don't believe that the rebels should be armed. They have eaten a dead soldiers intestines, does that sound like the Robin Hood posse that will eventually want to be warm and cosy with Middle England? It's NONE of our business and we are falling into the same old traps.

If we are to be supporting rebels then I ask for consistency, support the Palestinians and the Bahraini's too. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite nation with a proven track record of telling porkies. We practially ignore countries that DO have nukes and a proven track record of invading its neighbors.Oh, but we like that. We don't even just invade our neighbors we make up things and invade countries far, far away.

The agendas are obvious and people in Britain and America know the score. They are against arming the rebels as polls show. Most of the Middle East is against it too, but the will of the people is once again swept aside by the dictarorial war drum powers of Britain and America. Is the the majority of the world just trying to score points, because if we erase my views and those of Kirkland, we still have everyone here against arming the rebels and the majority of the people around the world too.

[El Kabong]

Yes, and your government has also used nuclear bombs, napalm and phosporous. It doesn't matter what your government tells you is okay as it is clear that your government doesn't care about what is okay. Your government tortures, renditions and lies to invade other countries and that is the sector that you have signed up for. Now how any of that can provide a legal framework for anything is insane. I am am sure Hitler had a legal team telling him he was well within his rights etc.

Law is irrelevant as compared to what is moral. Most people would argue that the war in Iraq was wrong and on that basis alone, it doesn't matter about legality. Most would agree on phosphorous too. A country like America talking about chemicals and getting involved in another countries civil war is a joke and not a funny one.

America is the bogeyman and it doesn't take me to make it that way. I am a marginal person, but practically every English and American person I have read is condemning England and America and at the end of the day you are too. We just disagree on phosphorous which any chemist would tell you has all the hallmarks of a chemical weapon. Legalese doesn't hide basic science.

Despite your 2/3 of non-sequiter and hyperbole if you don't see that there is a fundamental difference in the purpose and capability of WP compared to nerve/blister agents then you are simply being willfully ignorant in order to validate your own world view. I do agree with one point though. Law is irrelevant compared to morality and war has nothing to do with morality. It is about killing and applying rules to how and when two groups of people decide to kill each other is pretty moronic.

Thank you!

[El Kabong]

You know what's ironic?

At the same time that Obama is trying to make it harder for US citizens to buy and own guns he is going to supply Syrian "rebels" with weapons which will no doubt fall directly into the hands of terrorists


Fucking moron of a President