Not really. Going to war/ launching military action should indeed require a very high standard of evidence given the consequences of being wrong. On this, she's right.
US/UK/France launch airstrikes in Syria
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
She may already have the information but lacks the domestic political to proceed.
No, because if the US, France or UK had proof they would release it to justify intervention.
They certainly wouldn't if it involves sources and methods.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Whatever happened to the element of surprise Trump was banging on about - remember "WE ARE GOING TO ATTACK MOSUL"?
If she had the intelligence and proof, the Executive would have shared it with MPs to strengthen their position in case of a Commons vote. I don't think they have proof as of now. Cameron lost the vote decisively in 2013 and the PLP went against Corbyn in 2015.
Labour MPs like Gardiner and Skinner will definitely vote against her. Lib Dems, the SNP, loads of Tories. She risks dividing the caucus further at a time when they have started to support her and she's in a better position now than she was last summer. She's not going to risk a vote or military action.
NATO is threatening to directly attack Russia? That’s just a bit of a stretch.
I agree that the whole thing is a farce. It’s not like Russia is there out of the goodness of Putin’s heart. All he cares about is his Mediterranean naval base.
12D Chess
All part of the plan obviously, Putin's ghost will take over after WW3.
Saudi Arabia would never bomb the shit out of another ME country...
Still not enough. Need to get the Mauritanians, Nicaraguans and Samoans on board.
I suspect she'd struggle to get it through. As you say plenty of Tories would be against her, Corbyn would probably whip the Labour Party against it, and Lib Dems/SNP would oppose. Doing it without parliamentary approval would be quite dodgy as well.
Sorry should have put white text, we were calling out the hypocrisy after the same accusations were thrown on Corbyn for him questioning the integriy of evidence and procedure.
I agree with the stance of caution and don't see any case for immediacy. If they're not confident they could wait and gather the intel to confirm then id also question the strength of their current intel.
These are two of my favourite quotes here. "But why would he do something that's completely illogical and damaging to his cause?" "Well, that's because he's a psychopath."
"But where's the proof that he did it?" " We have it, but we can't show it because then the enemy will know our sources and methods." "Oh well, bomb away then."
I wonder how long it'll take before people start questioning the neverending bullshit they're being fed. Probably not soon enough.
It would have been nice if the Lib Dems had more seats. They are being the pro-Europe anti-austerity voice in Parliament and they aren't getting enough credit for it. The SNP as well. But regarding the Syria vote, yeah, I can see Opposition being more or less united against her. Labour would unite behind Corbyn, even the Blairites.
Also, quite a few people in her Cabinet like David Davis and Michael Fallon do not really support her on numerous issues. The only person she is really close to is Hammond. That's why he's Chancellor in the first place. You can't be the Premier without having a good relationship with the Chancellor, can you!
Interesting that is coming from our resident GRU troll, since its a common tactic used by Putin. "Show us your intelligence so we can change our practices to make sure you are never allowed to collect intelligence on us again".
This settles it then, the entire thing is a false flag. Saudis are scum of the earth, even worse than that north korean dictator.
Usual suspects all in on it - Israel, US, Saudi.
You just know it isn't for the entirely the wrong reasons when those three get involved..
Did someone mention the axis of evil a while back?
They were behind the strikes the other day?
Its a convenient way of lumping a conspiracy into tidy package.
Here's yet another tactic: call anyone who disagree with your version of reality a Kremlin stooge, Putin shill, GRU troll etc to dismiss anything they say without actually disproving their argument.
Yes, but those don't seem to have had anything to do with the Chemical attack, beyond perhaps taking advantage of the situation to hit a pre-selected target. Israel has been striking targets in Syria at will throughout the course of the conflict, it has its own interests and red-lines that are completely independent of any other players in Syria.
Israel targets specific (Iran\Hezb related targets) in Syria out of their own interest
Saudi-Arabia will get involved because of their own interest (terrorist group previously holding Ghouta is Saudi backed, plus the anti Iran perspective)
USA will strike for their own interest (Russia's base there, anti Iran and want regime change)
As usual, it is a Middle-Eastern clusterfeck.
I hope that Trump's tweet was posturing while actually carrying out a strike as limited as last time.
One thing is for sure - the fact that he said its going to happen guarantees that something will happen. Otherwise he will look like a feckless loser, which of course he can't allow.
Ok, but I'm not sure how this adds up to a US-Saudi-Israeli conspiracy?
I also find it extremely doubtful that the Saudis will do anything.
Did I call it a conspiracy by those nations?
I stated what I believe are the true reasons for them attacking. Israel has already done it, the US probably will and Saudi-Arabia might as well if their puppet masters allow or ask them to.
A misunderstanding on my part so, when you say they're "in on it" that makes it sound like the "it" you speak of is some kind of conspiracy.
Didn't he say that North Korea will be met with the fire and fury?
Last edited:
That was as a negotiation tactic to bring Kim to the table for denuclearization and also let him know his regime would end instantly if he tried anything against the South or attempted to lob rockets at the US. There's no negotiation tactic on this one as Trump already drew his line last year when Assad did the same thing.
One of the Russian TV channels just issued casual advise on how to behave and be prepared for living in war conditions (bunkers, stocking up with cans etc.) in case things escalate, pretty surreal.
Trump: "WE ARE GOING TO ATTACK SYRIA!"
Syrians: "Thanks for the heads up Donny..."
Syrians: "Thanks for the heads up Donny..."
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Glenn and Tucker. <3
Always wondered what would happen if SNL and RT merged.
Assad's bio makes for interesting reading. I don't see how you can dismiss him as a psychopath. But you do wonder how he goes from eye doctor to ruthless dictator in such a short time.
Are you fecking Clarice Sterling?
A psychopath is calculating and cold, he never does something "just because", he does something because he can gain an advantage from it.
What you are describiing is irrational behaviour, not a big trait of the psycho.