Syria

[peterms]

David Davis, just now: recognises it is possible the rebels deployed the CWs, and says "We do not want to be conned into a war...we must recognise that our intelligence might be wrong..."

[colhint]

 

I don't think that all MP's are given all of the information, quite rightly too. You can't have all that intelligence out in the open. So I assume it's just a summary.....

There is a small flaw with this approach. Only a teensy weensy one, mind. I hesitate to mention it at all, but what the heck.

It's just that this whole war business seems quite a significant sort of thing to undertake, what with all the death and everything.

 

So given that MPs are called to vote on whether to actually go ahead do it or not, I feel that just maybe they ought to have a bit more than "just a summary", to go on.

 

Summary - "bad man did naughty thing. God told me to get them with guns, with my bessy frend Murka - anyone against? No that's that sorted then!"

 

14 years later, the report into the lying b*stard is still not published.

 

 

Can't agree with that. If we have under cover agents working with groups all over the region collecting all this intelligence it would blow their cover. Its not as if we just say to Saddam, tell us what you have got and we'll just take it at face value. So if we have people working with all these groups covertly, it wouldn't take them long to realise where the info is coming from. So would you want all this passed onto every MP? Or would you just want a summary of the intelligence passed to them

[bickster]

Cameron appears to be saying, go with my hunch, I've got no actual evidence yet but I think it was them. Then as one of his reasons, they've done it 14 times before so it must be them.

So David, why didn't anyone do anything about it the first 13 times and what makes this instance that you have no actual evidence for (in his own words) so special compared to the rest?

[bickster]

It appears the govts evidence so far are "open source documents", which we're all implored to watch.

Would anyone have taken him seriously if he'd said, "it's on YouTube, watch it!"?

[peterms]

 

 

I don't think that all MP's are given all of the information, quite rightly too. You can't have all that intelligence out in the open. So I assume it's just a summary.....

There is a small flaw with this approach. Only a teensy weensy one, mind. I hesitate to mention it at all, but what the heck.

It's just that this whole war business seems quite a significant sort of thing to undertake, what with all the death and everything.

 

So given that MPs are called to vote on whether to actually go ahead do it or not, I feel that just maybe they ought to have a bit more than "just a summary", to go on.

 

Summary - "bad man did naughty thing. God told me to get them with guns, with my bessy frend Murka - anyone against? No that's that sorted then!"

 

14 years later, the report into the lying b*stard is still not published.

 

 

Can't agree with that. If we have under cover agents working with groups all over the region collecting all this intelligence it would blow their cover. Its not as if we just say to Saddam, tell us what you have got and we'll just take it at face value. So if we have people working with all these groups covertly, it wouldn't take them long to realise where the info is coming from. So would you want all this passed onto every MP? Or would you just want a summary of the intelligence passed to them

 

 

The security services, like the armed forces, the police and other state employees, must be subject to democratic control.  The alternative is that we have a police state.

 

To argue that they work "under cover" and so their activities must be concealed from the scrutiny of elected representatives, who must accept whatever summary of activities which the security forces deem to prudent to allow them to see, is frankly not an argument even the heads of the armed services make.

 

If we are to engage in war, we must be assured that the basis for war is sound.  It is not acceptable to be given a summary, a flavour, and to accept at face value the assurances of the people vetting the information.

 

If anyone was minded otherwise a decade ago, I'd have thought the experience of us being drawn into a murderous and illegal conflict on the basis of a pack of lies, would have taught them something.

[bickster]

MPs have had the opportunity to see all the evidence this time though, its all on YouTube apparently...

[drat01]

MPs have had the opportunity to see all the evidence this time though, its all on YouTube apparently...

 

I think I have found out it's been all a big mistake

 

It's not Syria it's Siri !!

 

[drat01]

Oh dear - it seems that a leading Tory is now resorting to Flashman tactics because the Amendment was raised. Craig Oliver will either be sacked so many are saying or have to issue a grovelling apology. And these people are really responsible for deciding if a country should go to war?

[blandy]

 

 

I don't think that all MP's are given all of the information, quite rightly too. You can't have all that intelligence out in the open. So I assume it's just a summary.....

There is a small flaw with this approach. Only a teensy weensy one, mind. I hesitate to mention it at all, but what the heck.

It's just that this whole war business seems quite a significant sort of thing to undertake, what with all the death and everything.

 

So given that MPs are called to vote on whether to actually go ahead do it or not, I feel that just maybe they ought to have a bit more than "just a summary", to go on.

 

Summary - "bad man did naughty thing. God told me to get them with guns, with my bessy frend Murka - anyone against? No that's that sorted then!"

 

14 years later, the report into the lying b*stard is still not published.

 

 

Can't agree with that. If we have under cover agents working with groups all over the region collecting all this intelligence it would blow their cover. Its not as if we just say to Saddam, tell us what you have got and we'll just take it at face value. So if we have people working with all these groups covertly, it wouldn't take them long to realise where the info is coming from. So would you want all this passed onto every MP? Or would you just want a summary of the intelligence passed to them

 

Obviously, as I initially wrote, and as Peter has expanded upon, I want them to have access to all the detail. All of it. Where there are issues with individuals names or other sensitive matters, this can be controlled by not allowing documents to be taken out of the building, or copied, and so on, but really, I think unless there's very good reason, all the information pertaining to a war "in our names" should be available not just to the MPs deciding on whether to go to war, but to "us" as well.

 

As for Cameron mentioning open source information, is that like something written by a student and copied off the internet? Well that fills me with confidence.

[PauloBarnesi]

Must be something about the position; Coulson & Campbell didn’t exactly cover themselves in glory... But of course he’s not an MP, so he won’t be deciding if an attack is made or not...

Edited August 29, 2013 by PauloBarnesi

[Chindie]

As the flag in my avatar suggests, I am a part of this Zionist cult who secretly intend to take over the world. Still, neither I nor any of my colleagues is keen to get into a war with Syria. Israel has nothing to gain from the fall of Assad. True, he's not a friend, but the Syrian border was quiet since 1973, and the forces who wish to take his place will most probably change this status.

Israel has gains to make.

Gas gains, to be precise. Which in turn undermine a potential economic power play from Iran.

Europe would gain in time by the same route.

And, of course, in a region that tries to remain stable by maintaining a status quo of numerous actors pulling in opposite directions, Syria is a worrying wildcard for Israel (and anyone else with interests in the region, such is pretty much the entire developed world) that threatens the status quo to the extent that interested parties would rather like to manipulate and control the situation or position it more in their favour.

A great deal of the world has interests in this conflict. The question becomes are those interests outweighed by the shitstorm getting their hands dirty would raise...

[AVFCforever1991]

What do Americans think about War with Syria?

 

[chrisp65]

 

 

I don't think that all MP's are given all of the information, quite rightly too. You can't have all that intelligence out in the open. So I assume it's just a summary.....

There is a small flaw with this approach. Only a teensy weensy one, mind. I hesitate to mention it at all, but what the heck.

It's just that this whole war business seems quite a significant sort of thing to undertake, what with all the death and everything.

 

So given that MPs are called to vote on whether to actually go ahead do it or not, I feel that just maybe they ought to have a bit more than "just a summary", to go on.

 

Summary - "bad man did naughty thing. God told me to get them with guns, with my bessy frend Murka - anyone against? No that's that sorted then!"

 

14 years later, the report into the lying b*stard is still not published.

 

 

Can't agree with that. If we have under cover agents working with groups all over the region collecting all this intelligence it would blow their cover. Its not as if we just say to Saddam, tell us what you have got and we'll just take it at face value. So if we have people working with all these groups covertly, it wouldn't take them long to realise where the info is coming from. So would you want all this passed onto every MP? Or would you just want a summary of the intelligence passed to them

 

 

no, you're right, we should just trust what we are told

 

prepare to die arab type people! I have it on good authority from trustworthy agents that stuff has happened I needn't worry myself about proof or detail but it's a big enough secret thing that I should endorse killing you, whoever you are!

[LondonLax]

 

As the flag in my avatar suggests, I am a part of this Zionist cult who secretly intend to take over the world. Still, neither I nor any of my colleagues is keen to get into a war with Syria. Israel has nothing to gain from the fall of Assad. True, he's not a friend, but the Syrian border was quiet since 1973, and the forces who wish to take his place will most probably change this status.

Israel has gains to make.

Gas gains, to be precise. Which in turn undermine a potential economic power play from Iran.

Europe would gain in time by the same route.

And, of course, in a region that tries to remain stable by maintaining a status quo of numerous actors pulling in opposite directions, Syria is a worrying wildcard for Israel (and anyone else with interests in the region, such is pretty much the entire developed world) that threatens the status quo to the extent that interested parties would rather like to manipulate and control the situation or position it more in their favour.

A great deal of the world has interests in this conflict. The question becomes are those interests outweighed by the shitstorm getting their hands dirty would raise...

 

 

Israel (and the US for that matter) was quite happy with Mubarak in Egypt and Assad in Syria, their boarders were stable on both sides. The Arab spring kicking off was not in their interests. 

[Chindie]

As the flag in my avatar suggests, I am a part of this Zionist cult who secretly intend to take over the world. Still, neither I nor any of my colleagues is keen to get into a war with Syria. Israel has nothing to gain from the fall of Assad. True, he's not a friend, but the Syrian border was quiet since 1973, and the forces who wish to take his place will most probably change this status.

Israel has gains to make.

Gas gains, to be precise. Which in turn undermine a potential economic power play from Iran.

Europe would gain in time by the same route.

And, of course, in a region that tries to remain stable by maintaining a status quo of numerous actors pulling in opposite directions, Syria is a worrying wildcard for Israel (and anyone else with interests in the region, such is pretty much the entire developed world) that threatens the status quo to the extent that interested parties would rather like to manipulate and control the situation or position it more in their favour.

A great deal of the world has interests in this conflict. The question becomes are those interests outweighed by the shitstorm getting their hands dirty would raise...

Israel (and the US for that matter) was quite happy with Mubarak in Egypt and Assad in Syria, their boarders were stable on both sides. The Arab spring kicking off was not in their interests.

Indeed. They were stable known quantities. The Arab Spring want directly in the interests of the US, Israel, etc but did present an opportunity to attempt to adjust things in their favour (increasing influence through new regimes, presenting new business opportunities, etc etc). It hasn't quite worked out but the opportunity was there.

To some degree, Syria is the same story, but there are some pressing matters. That gas pipeline for example.

[LondonLax]

 

 

 

As the flag in my avatar suggests, I am a part of this Zionist cult who secretly intend to take over the world. Still, neither I nor any of my colleagues is keen to get into a war with Syria. Israel has nothing to gain from the fall of Assad. True, he's not a friend, but the Syrian border was quiet since 1973, and the forces who wish to take his place will most probably change this status.

Israel has gains to make.

Gas gains, to be precise. Which in turn undermine a potential economic power play from Iran.

Europe would gain in time by the same route.

And, of course, in a region that tries to remain stable by maintaining a status quo of numerous actors pulling in opposite directions, Syria is a worrying wildcard for Israel (and anyone else with interests in the region, such is pretty much the entire developed world) that threatens the status quo to the extent that interested parties would rather like to manipulate and control the situation or position it more in their favour.

A great deal of the world has interests in this conflict. The question becomes are those interests outweighed by the shitstorm getting their hands dirty would raise...

Israel (and the US for that matter) was quite happy with Mubarak in Egypt and Assad in Syria, their boarders were stable on both sides. The Arab spring kicking off was not in their interests.

Indeed. They were stable known quantities. The Arab Spring want directly in the interests of the US, Israel, etc but did present an opportunity to attempt to adjust things in their favour (increasing influence through new regimes, presenting new business opportunities, etc etc). It hasn't quite worked out but the opportunity was there.

To some degree, Syria is the same story, but there are some pressing matters. That gas pipeline for example.

 

Yeah, no doubt they will be trying to make the best of the situation but they would be much happier if the Arab Spring never happened. 

[Chindie]

I'm not sure I've suggested otherwise.

[colhint]

 

 

 

I don't think that all MP's are given all of the information, quite rightly too. You can't have all that intelligence out in the open. So I assume it's just a summary.....

There is a small flaw with this approach. Only a teensy weensy one, mind. I hesitate to mention it at all, but what the heck.

It's just that this whole war business seems quite a significant sort of thing to undertake, what with all the death and everything.

 

So given that MPs are called to vote on whether to actually go ahead do it or not, I feel that just maybe they ought to have a bit more than "just a summary", to go on.

 

Summary - "bad man did naughty thing. God told me to get them with guns, with my bessy frend Murka - anyone against? No that's that sorted then!"

 

14 years later, the report into the lying b*stard is still not published.

 

 

Can't agree with that. If we have under cover agents working with groups all over the region collecting all this intelligence it would blow their cover. Its not as if we just say to Saddam, tell us what you have got and we'll just take it at face value. So if we have people working with all these groups covertly, it wouldn't take them long to realise where the info is coming from. So would you want all this passed onto every MP? Or would you just want a summary of the intelligence passed to them

 

 

The security services, like the armed forces, the police and other state employees, must be subject to democratic control.  The alternative is that we have a police state.

 

To argue that they work "under cover" and so their activities must be concealed from the scrutiny of elected representatives, who must accept whatever summary of activities which the security forces deem to prudent to allow them to see, is frankly not an argument even the heads of the armed services make.

 

If we are to engage in war, we must be assured that the basis for war is sound.  It is not acceptable to be given a summary, a flavour, and to accept at face value the assurances of the people vetting the information.

 

If anyone was minded otherwise a decade ago, I'd have thought the experience of us being drawn into a murderous and illegal conflict on the basis of a pack of lies, would have taught them something.

 

 

yes they must be under scrutiny. However the intelligence gathered should be presented in such away that they are not compromised. Now if there were say information that could only come from one source, is it right that it shared with every MP. Bearing in mind that one source is now compromised and could be used to gather other intelligence. Wouldn't it be better to presented it to the JIC who could then advise MP's. 

If the alternative is provide MP's with everything, how long would it take for sensitive information to be passed to the Russians,Chinese, US etc. 

 

As for 

 

no, you're right, we should just trust what we are told

 

prepare to die arab type people! I have it on good authority from trustworthy agents that stuff has happened I needn't worry myself about proof or detail but it's a big enough secret thing that I should endorse killing you, whoever you are!

 

Isn't that what we do now, well if you replace trustworthy agents with MP's

 

[bickster]

colhint, you seem to think there's secret agents involved here, by the PM's own admission today, his only evidence is "Open Source and in the public domain", that's a euphemism for YouTube videos if you hadn't cracked on yet

He wants to kill lots of innocent people on that basis

[colhint]

of course there are agents there