Arm the Syrian rebels - Cameron

#2
Mind our own ****ing business - Biscuits Brown
 
#3
I assume we already are arming them. Dave's just trying to drum up some business for BaE in the Kingships, not the sort of people who worry much about the thickening reports of rebel atrocities.

...
But there the last week has been spent attempting to reconcile the competing demands of various factions inside and outside the biggest opposition body, the Syrian National Council, and the terms under which it would join a broader "National Initiative".

A vote to appoint George Sabra, a Christian former communist, head of the SNC executive was heralded as a step forward but did little to disguise the reluctance of the competing factions to set aside their ambitions for the sake of unity.

Diplomats said the apparently pointless arguments were actually an improvement on previous meetings. At one gathering in Tunis, security had to be called five times to break up fist fights between delegates. In Turkey, a delegate walked out in protest at his position in an official photograph.
...
My bold, a strangely reassuring choice, how times have changed.
 
#4
I'm glad Cameron said this. Now at least we can be 100% sure what we shouldn't​ do.
 
#6
Could be angling for a post No 10 post as ME Peace Envoy.
Is that post not filled already - but a slippery, insincere, self important, and media savvy snake oil salesman?
 
#8
So, let me get this straight: we don't have the money to train (and retain) British Forces, arm them, give them suitable armour for Ops, etc...

...but we apparently have money to spend on arming a foreign militia, that will most likely turn their guns on us?
 
#9
IMO this would be a tremendous mistake---just as in Libya, once the despot is overthrown a new despotic group will emerge and we will have armed them in large part.
 
#10
Who told you that a Gaddafi was despot or that Assad is a despot? Western media and politicos? Haven't you learn anything in the past 15 years that you still trust them?!
 
#11
Who told you that a Gaddafi was despot or that Assad is a despot? Western media and politicos?
This is something I've thought a lot about recently. While shooting armed insurgents is, I guess, the prerogative of any state, shooting unarmed protestors immediately puts you in the despot category. There are a lot of unanswered questions about the origins of the fighting in Libya (when I met the Misrata Military Council, they were adamant they'd set up their command centre and started comms with NATO one day prior to the first fatalities in Benghazi*), but no-one can argue that the Syrians weren't being pummelled while peacefully protesting months before the FSA came into being.

*I'd argue that Misrata was, initially, a failed Air Force coup, but that's another story...
 
#13
1. Lybian government did not shoot UNARMED protesters. Those shot were attempting to take arsenals. Name me one country where government will put up with this.

2. April 2011 Press TV talks with Dr. Paul Craig Roberts: "That is what's unique about the Libyan revolt. It's not a peaceful revolt; it's not taking place in the capital; it's an armed revolt from the eastern part of the country. And we know that the CIA is involved on the ground and so they are already armed...

We want to overthrow Gaddafi and Assad in Syria because we want to clear China and Russia out of the Mediterranean.

This is a major reason why the CIA has been active in eastern Libya and it's the reason protests broke out in the east not in the capital like in the other Arab countries and it's the reasons it's armed...

The main reason I think was to evict China from Libya, which is what is happening. The Chinese had 30,000 people there and they've had to evacuate 29,000 of them.

It's also payback to Gaddafi for refusing to join the US Africa Command (AfriComm). It became operative in 2008 and was the American response to China's penetration of Africa; we created a military response to that and Gaddafi refused to participate -- he said it was an act of imperialism trying to purchase an entire continent.

And I think the third reason is that Gaddafi in Libya controls an important part of the Mediterranean coast; as does Syria.

We know for a fact that the CIA has been stirring discord in eastern Libya for some time, this is a known fact. And the release of Wikileaks cables show that the Americans are involved in stirring up unrest in Syria.

...the Syrian and Libya affairs have American hands in them, organizing the demonstrations, providing money and so forth. There are always discontented people that can be bought and promises given.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...q3RcnKxeXh5TWEZ3w&sig2=x5ZGPI9V8O6EikM3x8nsVQ

3. Just to remind everybody: Gaddafi was referred to as a "leader", but not in a sense Western politicos/media presented it. He was a LEADER OF LIBYAN REVOLUTION -- a nation's father-figure; Gaddafi DID NOT hold any official position since 1979 which is more than can be said about British royal family or US ruling clans of Bush, Clinton, Rockefeller, etc.
 
#15
**** off, tinfoil. It was simultaneously more and less complex than that.
 
#16
#19
Oh for ****'s sake, the Syrians are a byword for brutality in the region. The al-Assads even before Hama were fully deserving of the despot label. The current behavior is well up there with Russians in Chechnya or the Sri Lankans mopping up the Tamil tigers.

The only argument that worth considering is they haven't quite got to the sort of "no more Mr nice guy" schtick they exhibited in the 80s and elements of the rebels are showing signs of being quite as nasty. They've got whole sects of the population in their sights. In Libya the folk we supported did turn out to be rather anti-Gibson, but they never seemed as likely to be the perps in the kind of genocide that might happen in Syria.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top