Arm the Syrian rebels - Cameron

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Yokel, Nov 11, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Mind our own ****ing business - Biscuits Brown
    • Like Like x 3
  2. 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.

    My bold, a strangely reassuring choice, how times have changed.
  3. I'm glad Cameron said this. Now at least we can be 100% sure what we shouldn't​ do.
    • Like Like x 3
  4. Could be angling for a post No 10 post as ME Peace Envoy.
    • Like Like x 3
  5. Is that post not filled already - but a slippery, insincere, self important, and media savvy snake oil salesman?
  6. Its a good idea because when we invade them in 10 years or so they will have something to shoot at us with.
  7. 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?
  8. 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.
  9. 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?!
    • Like Like x 1
  10. 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...
  11. 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.

    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.
  12. **** off, tinfoil. It was simultaneously more and less complex than that.
    • Like Like x 1