Listening to 5Live today I heard a report about an attack on a school by a Syrian aircraft using some sort of incendiary bomb. Now I’m fairly hardened to images of war and the resultant carnage that results but I have to admit when I heard one man making his plea to the UN (10:14:30) it kind of stopped me dead in my tracks.
What kind of peace are you calling for?
Don’t you see this….
Don’t you see this…
What do you need to see?
We are human beings.
We want to live.
You have to listen to it to get the full emotional impact, coming suddenly out of the radio in the middle of the day is very effecting….here is the BBC video report of the same thing with graphic images of the injuries….the ‘walking dead’.
Parliament, that body of fine upstanding men and women has voted….to look the other way.
Paddy Ashdown responded to that vote:
“In 50 years trying to serve my country I have never felt so depressed/ashamed. Britain’s answer to the Syrian horrors? none of our business!”
He’s not wrong is he?
If the vote in Parliament had been one to merely delay military action brought about by the use of chemical weapons that may have been excusable….to ensure the culprit was correctly identified.
However that wasn’t what the vote ended up saying.
The vote has apparently put any possibility of military action off the table, for ever….regardless of any future events that may occur, however terrible, however many people get killed, whatever the means used to kill them.
Assad can murder as many people as he likes, in whatever manner he likes and the worst that will happen to him is a diplomatic flurry of indignation and condemnation.
He must be shaking in his blood filled boots.
But Ed Miliband is happy with that, in fact he’s trying to make as much political hay as he can out of events.
He piously grandstands demanding ‘compelling evidence’ of chemical attacks…..and yet already over 100,000 Syrians have been killed and more die daily from ‘conventional weapons’…such as napalm bombs…..just how many have to die before he feels so ‘compelled’ to help them out, how many more millions have to be displaced, how many towns and cities destroyed?
What is Miliband’s ‘red line’? I forgot…of course….he doesn’t have one….he’s already decided…there will be no military action at all.
Miliband states that we should learn the lessons of Iraq and that political and diplomatic pressure will persuade Assad to come to terms.
So what is the lesson of Iraq? The lesson of Iraq is that after 12 years of UN sanctions and huge diplomatic efforts Saddam was still in power and totally unwilling to negotiate and happily murdering and gassing his own people.
Still it’s good that Miliband and his family can be reassured that his own kids will be safe…and how ironic that he wears a poppy, the man who won’t stand up for those who suffer and die:
Shame about the Syrian kids that he has abandoned to their fate:
Miliband says that what is important is that the war is brought to an end.
His plan? To talk softly to Assad but not to wave a big stick just in case he gets angry.
Why would Assad negotiate? He’s winning and getting arms shipped in from Russia and Iran.
What would make him come to the negotiating table?
A military strike that so reduced his own military capability that he couldn’t beat the Rebels…not only that but make it likely that the Rebels may win.
Because Assad would then have to think….what next if the Rebels win? Does he end up swinging from a lamp post or at the very least in the dock for war crimes. Either way he loses.
The only thing that will do that and force him to end his attacks is a massive strike against his airforce and main weaponry.
Miliband has ensured that Assad remains in power and that the war goes on, killing countless more people, until that victory is assured.
Shame the BBC have yet to seriously challenge Miliband on his stance.
They know he is on dodgy ground , they asked Cameron if Miliband had behaved ‘dishonourably’, and yet I have heard no building of any momentum on that line of questioning yet.
‘Unarmed civilians being killed….I don’t think we can touch this…UN’s jurisdiction, we can’t intervene…return to base’
If you’ve seen the film ‘Blackhawk Down’ you might think no lessons have been learnt since then…or indeed from Bosnia and the Srebrenica Massacre when Dutch troops had to stand by and watch 8000 Bosnians being murdered….in a UN protected ‘safe area’.
Lots of things wrong with this.
Has Biased BBC ever put up a similar post about Zimbabwe, Congo, CAR, Egypt, Mexico, Colombia, etc? Lots more people have died there, many of them children.
Ashdown is a moron. Did you hear what he said about how this was a good thing because Obama was president and not Bush?
To pretend that the UK’s role in any action would have been remotely relevant to the outcome is an idea 60+ years out of date; if you (or David Cameron) want to strut the global stage then you need a military financed and resourced to pull it off. Ours isn’t.
Miliband out-smarted Cameron. You may not like it, but that’s what happened. Call it unprincipled, but Cameron himself is a shallow, charlatan spiv so it serves him right.
And nothing to do with the BBC. If you don’t like how your MP voted then take it up with him, Alan. It’s called parliamentary democracy.
I’m with Steyn, as usual:
Broadly agree, but I wouldn’t say Miliband outsmarted Cameron. He dithered in the most disgusting opportunistic manner and got lucky. For the moment. He may not look so clever if the chemical weapons continue to be used and he’s seen as having prevented action being taken.
Alan is making the mistake of thinking that revulsion at something means there must be something you can do. In this case I don’t think there is anything within our power that isn’t just as likely to make things worse.
However, now I’m rambling off the topic of BBC bias. A bit like Alan’s post.
Agree re Miliband, even Labour don’t think he ‘outsmarted’ Cameron: he just changed his mind…again: as you put it so well: “He dithered in the most disgusting opportunistic manner and got lucky”.
“Cameron himself is a shallow, charlatan spiv so it serves him right” .. and you ve forgotten the most irritating trait … arrogant, people have just about had it with being talked down to by this airhead
… anyway …. “outsmarted Cameron”
my goodness that’s not exactly difficult is it.
but … sadly, that pales, nay makes him appear “Einstein” like in comparison to the 3 Amigo s across the pond Bazza Kerry and Hagel.
Mentioned on the OT, Clegg Scameron Vague and co, have been saved from themselves, … oh and Paddy Pantsdown 😀 ……..
Parliamentary democracy? No…not at all…it’s driven by the BBC et al whose reporting on the Iraq War has completely unbalanced how politicians react to events such as Syria, the outcome of this vote clearly decided by that.
As for not mentioning Congo etc…Yes we have mentioned them numerous times, the 5 million dead in the Congo, the death rate in Mexico that’s higher than in Iraq, the paradox of Pakistan…just why does the BBC ignore them by comparison with little old Israel?
As for Britain taking a major combat role in this operation that was not suggested….just that it supports such a move and helps as and when it can…..we have the fourth largest military in the world despite appearances.
As for your suggestion that Miliband outsmarted Cameron…just laughable…Miliband was going to support Cameron, then he refused to when he realised his own backbenchers wouldn’t support him….and he could make some political capital out of this. Gutless and without principle. At least Cameron said what he meant and meant what he said.
Nothing to do with the BBC?…why don’t do some thinking for yourself instead of just swallowing whole what the BBC tells you.
And when you’ve started thinking for yourself perhaps you can then criticise MPs and get them to think for themselves….and then we might have your famous ‘parliamentary democracy’.
Good luck with that.
Indeed: the BBC bias could be the way they have been crowing for rebel support and now suddenly couldn’t shut up yesterday crowing that Cameron failed to get support for the rebels. In fact laughably, as Johhnythefish wrote yesterday, they eventually ran out of negative adjectives
Something I find odd. Both Cameron and the BBC support the Syrian rebels, and have done for some time. Singing from the same sheet. Cameron has made his support for Islam abundantly clear, which fits in with BBC policy. However, the mood of the country was definitely against intervention in Syria and MPs who would normally have supported a military strike like sheep took fright and rejected Cameron. Milliband was lucky. The BBC and Cameron will soon unite and return to their pro rebel standpoint and some kind of military intervention is still on the cards. Cameron was not shafted by the BBC, the public did that.
No, the public didn’t, the polls recorded growing disdain and more or less 50% against missile strikes. Some MPs voted on this, many used political lines, I very much doubt that the constituencies of 100% of those Labour MPs voting had much sway ove rthe way their MP voted. My comment was about BBC reporting and yesterday the airwaves were awash with how this was an absolute disaster for Cameron, it was not, it is not.
The problem with Cameron’s handling of this matter, and in the wake of Libya as well, he was making such loud sabre rattling noises, that it seemed inevitable we were going to shoot ourselves in the foot once more by enabling Al Qa’eda terrorists in defeating an Arab Dictator.
If he’d taken the more measured approach that Obama has taken from the outset, he may have been trusted, but as it is he’s stripped the military bare and is asking them to perform yet more operational overreach on top of what we have already. He needs to make his mind up. What are his priorities? Normalisation perversion with ‘homosexual marriage’ and handing over billions each year in foreign aid, or properly funding our military for Britain defend its interests and play our role in the world? The best foreign aid we ever produced was in whacking those terrorists in Sierra Leone who were hacking off children’s limbs – and that was by General Richards acting against Blair’s orders, till it proved a success and got good press!
The alternative in Syria to Assad is an even worse Islamist goverment. If there is a way to punish Assad for his chemical attack without empowering his Islamist enemy, I wish Obama every success, otherwise I stern stare will have to suffice for now. Sheer joy listening to the abject hypocrisy of Obama and his team after their seditious hypocrisy over Iraq.
Apologies of someone has already made this point. But the Panorama team were at the site of the napalm attack last Monday. They ‘exclusively’ filmed the victims being brought to treatment centres.
Why did the BBC sit om the video until Thursday, wait until the debacle on the Commons was almost over.
Afraid it might upset Miliband’s little game?
Miliband btw who was pretending to be the statesman tonight on Five Live. ..an interview that I needed to turn off as I was driving. Not to have done so would have been too great a risk.
That is a VERY good point.
it is very sad and unfortunate what happened to these children with this napalm attack,i wish them a speedy recovery, but there is a problem here,where is the evidence that the syrian air force dropped this napalm bomb,i smell a rat here,a very big rat, al qaeda have the means to set up false flag attacks involving chemical weapons as we know,it seems very strange that this story came out from the bbc just a few hours after parliament voted not to go to war with syria. i have my doubts about this story and i urge caution and we must not jump to conclusions until we have caste iron evidence that the syrian air force did indeed carry out this napalm atack.
Where’s that photo from? The AP isn’t any more infallible when it comes to these things than the BBC is.
I have to disagree with Alan here.
We are much better off keeping out of it. Nether side are going to thank us for it, you mention Bosnia, we went in there with NATO after the UN failed to protect the Muslim population, we again went into Kosovo to do the same, but it doesn’t get us any thanks from the crazy Imam down at the local Mosque.
If action needs to be taken why should we get involved, let the Arab League intervene. get an Arab force together like they did in the first Gulf War and let them do it.
And one last point. Alan, you say; “Parliamentary democracy? No…not at all…it’s driven by the BBC et al whose reporting on the Iraq War has completely unbalanced how politicians react to events such as Syria, the outcome of this vote clearly decided by that.”
The British public were against any action and I posted this image of a YouGov/The Sun poll the other day that bared this out, so you could say that for once MP’s took heed of their constituents wishes, therefore making it exactly the outcome of a Parliamentary Democracy, the will of the people was done.
What matters to me is truth.
Without it all one is left with is manipulation.
And if one thing has epitomised this whole thing so far is the extent of deployment, by governments and media, all jockeying to push the result they all want.
For every Obama Admin, Cameron Spad, BBC talking head justification wrapped in a dodgy claim there is a counter.
This from another thread was an eye-opener:
August 30, 2013 at 11:32 pm
According to http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/29/verify-chemical-weapons-use-before-unleashing-the-dogs-of-war/ the White House has been less than accurate with its sources.
It certainly makes no sense for Assad to use the chemical weapons – much more likely for it to be the rebels.
Now I am sure I can be invited to accuse this report of lying too, as I was those it in turn counters.
Fact is, I simply do not know what the truth is.
With such vast misdirection, so poorly supported, it seems hardly surprising many have for now joined me in simply backing off and playing a waiting game until some of this fog of war clears. Which seems unlikely as so many players seem so intent in keeping it dense and swirling. Hence a not un-natural desire to step even further back. A very bad cycle for truth… and those poor innocents caught up in it.
Which too many who should know better should be ashamed of their part in helping create.
Beyond actually properly identifying the party/ies complicit in gassing kids as opposed to just shredding them with ordnance, this only gets us to the point of what can be realistically done.
Again, all I have heard from pols to the highest level and media in the highest dudgeon, is that ‘something’ needs to be done.
But what? Because the very few options I have heard floated sound like poking a very big wasp’s nest with some very symbolic sticks and hoping that more kids don’t get killed and more Russians don’t get snitty.
So again, my instinct has been to stay the hell back until a compelling reason to advance is presented.
Doing nothing may sound like a cop-out, but we seem to be where we are because, so far, all the do-something advocates have made a pig’s ear of any compelling argument why.
And if the only winner has been the gutter-dweller destined to remove any uncertainty over the BBC’s future forced funding, that’s just the slug at the bottom of the cake.
Starting to see some Obamaphiles grasp that their lad may not be quite the unifying force for goodness, at least outside their bubble worlds, that has been suggested up to now.
I found the selected call out (of two interviews that would hardly be called from opposing views) an interesting choice:
But it’s the ongoing casual editorialising that pervades that is so concerning, especially when referred to in such epic understatement as here…
‘He may have been lauded by the BBC (a Radio 4 presenter said on Thursday night that Labour had ‘won the war’ against the Government – a questionable choice of words)’
Well, surely a bit more than questionable, if from a supposedly impartial broadcaster. A bit like rushing to the airwaves after the Night of the Long Knives with ‘Say what you will about Adolph, it’s really not smart to turn your back on him’. Like it’s a good thing.
The BBC seems to have rediscovered its faith in the opportunistic Mr. Miliband, and is playing up his ‘scores’ ( shared a bizarre BBC FaceBook intro from yesterday where it was not the people, not Parliament, not democratic process that saw merit in a pause in the rush to an uncertain assault on an unknown foe, but Captain Brit Ed who had saved the day) and steering clear of the less savoury aspects of his ducking and diving.
If such a creaking cart sees merit in hitching to such a diseased horse, good luck to them both… so long as the unique way this country is getting shafted doesn’t see the rest of us compelled to sit with them in the impotent rigour they both represent.
Come on Alan, this is a site for the reporting of bias in the BBC, if you want to make posts like this then there are protest sites like Avaaz for this kind of campaign.
The people of the UK do not support further military adventuring in the Middle East after BLiars lies over Iraq.
This is a Muslim country, and like all the others it is run by a strong man without democracy, the Muslim countries without leaders following a revolution will soon have them back again. Taking action against Syria is about as effective as telling the tide to go back.
Fully agree with your last paragraph, but it can be argued that the bBCs reporting on Iraq et al has shaded the views on what military action is and is not acceptable. Perhaps they may be better employed asking all those Labour MPs, who strongly supported the Iraq debacle, why the situation in Syria is so different to Iraq or Kosovo.
Further to my last, I don’t support The West intervening in the Syrian civil war. The Arab League and bloc-voting UN should get their hands dirty. We provide enough funding to the UN and countless aid agencies, it’s about time they put our money where their mouth is.
The UN? What do you expect them to do? The current Special Envoy to Syria, Lakhdar Brahim, (appointed at the request of Kofi Annan on his way out the door, I think), wants to keep Assad in place. He was moaning in January about how “both sides are destroying Syria”, and everyone should stop helping the rebels. He didn’t come out and say Assad should stay, but that’s the only logical conclusion, even while paying lip service to the notion of encouraging the creation of a mythical transitional government.
Also, in 2004, he said that Israel was the “poison” in the region, so don’t hold your breath from anything useful coming from the UN. That sort of attitude may go over well in the BBC newsroom, but it doesn’t sound like something a peacemaker would say, even if that’s technically a different issue. And if you believe somebody who said this is serious about getting rid of Assad in favor of a transitional government that is anything other than what the MB was trying to do in Egypt, then I’ve got a nice bridge to sell you downtown.
David, I don’t ‘expect’ the UN to do anything. I do ‘hope’ that through yet another bloc-voted inaction they are shown to be even less than the empty vessel that I see them for. If they cannot do the task perhaps the question of multi-million financial support should be questioned. Will that help the current dilemma? Not a jot, but it may focus their attention when their expenses are not refunded. Mind you, I have the same vision for the bBC.
This article could have been better written and instead of promoting the view about the hypocrisy displayed by the bBC (UK is a fallen state for not voting to bomb Syria, when we all know that if Parliment had voted to bomb, the bBC would be promoting the British poodle, war warmongering Tories and think of the children angle)
It promotes a very personal view from the author that the British are wrong not to go it. I quote from above:
The vote has apparently put any possibility of military action off the table, for ever….regardless of any future events that may occur, however terrible, however many people get killed, whatever the means used to kill them. Assad can murder as many people as he likes, in whatever manner he likes and the worst that will happen to him is a diplomatic flurry of indignation and condemnation.
Alan, I mean no disrespect when I say this blog is about the bBC, when a post comes up berating British policy, then you dilute the waters. But just for your info;
” US aircraft carriers can carry more strike aircraft that the RAF owns , then there’s the French, which has more assets on the ground inside Syria than the US and UK combined.
Then there’s the other players who may join in. Turkey will jump in simply to take pressure away off the government .
The UAE has the most modern airforce in the region (Even newer than Israel) and just as numerous, Saudi Arabia would most likely help as well. Egypt who knows.. The world will not end by the UK keeping out of this one and lets be honest for all these so called political elites who keep on telling me on a daily basis that the Uk is a fading power and that the BRICS are the one to watch, how about we let them strut their stuff.
I sat and watched the lunch time news yesterday and I just could not get over just how much time and effort the bBC spent in promoting that not bombing Syria was wrong. Err the most jets the Uk would have provided is around 12 (more like 6)
But instead of looking at the positive (We are keeping our noses out) the bBC shed tears for its terrorist bed fellows by allowing nearly every Syrian living in the Uk to bitch. (Err if these people are so upset, why don’t they bugger off to the Mother country and die for their cause, nah they want others to do so)
But here’s a few things the bBC so called defence experts haven’t bothered to talk about if shrikes took place.
1) Cyprus is just across the water, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out that it would take much to lob a SSM onto a British sovereign base (of which there are 3) on the island.
There’s the Iran and Hezballah element and their penchant to export their peaceful ways onto the streets of London.
Then there’s the customary Jew angle. Lobb a few chemical weapons onto Israel , see Israel lash out and then play the..>See the UK and US support Jews against Muslims.
Instead all the bbC is concerned about is their heart eating terrorists in Syria are getting a good pasting and we should do everything we can to help them.
I don’t agree fully with Alan’s post but he has opened an idea of the BBC as subjecting long term damage on our democratic system this place isn’t as some seem to think only a site for the he said she said BBC twitter bias but also it’s grinding hidden agendas !
Got to say though I am finding it funny watching the left deal with the messiah and his French letter going to war anyway and how they are gonna lie their way round this one and right thinker types lining up to stand next to people who when it’s over will go back to spitting at them and labour MP’s who voted to kill tens of thousands but have learned from their error and draw a line under the blood!
No one comes out of this one smelling good!
The arab gulf states have apparently bought so much military hardware from the evil west – shouldn’t they use it themselves?
Muslims seem prepared to go to Jihad at the drop of a hat in the UK and the US……..why not help their ‘brothers’ out in Syria?
Alan L wrote:
“The Arab gulf states have apparently bought so much military hardware from the evil west – shouldn’t they use it themselves?”
Oh that’s easy to answer: The Arab nations may have
” All the gear, no idea” on how to use it.
Sorry to say so Pounce but you are wrong.
The most numerous western aircraft in the ME is the F16. The F16 will die in seconds against the SUs and MiGs of the Syrian airforce.
The Israelis could wipe out the Syrians (they have done it before) but then there would be a Jihad. Ali Bongo be praised.
And the main Israeli aircraft is ……….the F16, Syrias airforce is pitiful in numbers and quality, if the Israelis are Man Utd the Syrians are a local pub team.
Here’s the problem. The United DEMOCRATIC Nations! No such animal. How many are not oppressive regimes?
Let’s take the middle east for a start…..well, Israel isn’t an oppressive regime. In the rest of the developed world, free speech is gradually being banned. In developing countries, opponents of El Presidente have pretty short life expectancies. Er….that’s it, I think. Wait! Rockall is free of oppressive regimes too.
Almost everything Alan has written here is completely wrong.
The BBC has spent the last god-knows-how-long trying to convince us that the Muslim Brotherhood are the good guys and intervention is the way forward, using the same emotional manipulation tactics Alan has shown here, and not once questioning whether the chemical attack evidence has any substance to it. The public has been broadly against this and Parliament has for once listened, although I have no doubt Miliband would have also bowed down to the US if Labour had been in power and that his opposition was posturing. Cameron has quite correctly accepted Parliament’s decision and the US has been told what most of us have wanted to tell it for a long time – you can’t expect Britain to constantly follow your lead. It doesn’t matter how many times it’s referred to as a ‘special relationship,’ it’s completely one-way in America’s favour. And Ashdown is a hypocrite who only wants liberty when it suits him. Even today, as it’s been reported elsewhere that the MB have admitted it was THEM who carried out the chemical attack, the BBC not only refuses to report on this but has removed comments with the link – clear evidence that the BBC still heavily supports intervention, completely betraying the public consensus.
This is supposed to be a site highlighting the biases of the BBC, not a forum for venting the biases of the writing staff. This is one of the most astonishingly bad articles ever posted on this site.
I wonder how many of those who are quite happy to insist that what is happening in Syria is “nothing to do with us” and are happy for us to sit back, do nothing, except “Tut, tut” and wring our hands whilst watching it on TV from a safe distance whilst pretending it’s just another violent movie, would have the same attitude if it was the US, or even more so, Israel using the same methods as Assad?
It is a safe bet that they would be at the head of the cheerleaders demanding we should get involved to put an end to it. Would those same people demand nothing be done, apart from a bit of irrelevant tongue wagging, if the leaders in Norway, Italy, Denmark or any other number of countries were gassing and bombing their own people or incinerating schools and school children?
Of course, Syria is a far off country of which we know little so it’s nothing to do with us, is it?
Now where have I heard that before? Can somebody help with the answer?
Well as somebody who has earned 5 medals , I am more than happy to say : “Syria is nothing to do with us.”The British armed forces have been embroiled in the longest war deployment since Napoleons time, this hasn’t been made any easier by defence cuts, a very liberal media and a very hostile imported sector of the British Population.
We went into Kuwait to remove Saddam in 1991 and we have had troops in the area (I’m including Afghan in that) since . After Saddam smashed the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs we set up no fly zones in which to protect them. That was soon made into Imperialist killing zones by the left.
We bombed the Serbs in which to get them to stop killing Bosnians and Kosovans and that too was rewritten by the left into imperialist killing zones. (ironically it was later proven that the so called atrocities in Kosovo had been made up by the KLA in which to get the West invoked)
According to the left Afghanistan under the Taliban was a much better place than it is under the current regime who are supported by ISAF
Iraq, well you all saw the many stories which said that Iraq was a much better place to live when under the jack boot of Saddam than it is now.
Since 2001, we have all been fed a diet of how Iran is a victim and the Jews with their arms up the arses of the US are getting ready to bomb them (12 years later nowt)
Muslims angry over how they are perceived as, well not loyal citizens have succeeded in murdering thousands in the west (England,France,Germany,Russia,Spain, US) and that is only in the west. and the media refers to them as victims and that if we don’t change our stance over anything and everything then they will remain angry and ready to strike at a moments notice.
Yes what is happening in Syria is ugly, but which side do we pick? Becasue lets be honest, the people who are fighting the Assad regime are a lot worse than the Muppet lookalike and as we have seen time and time again, these people may be crying our for the west to help them, but as soon as they rule the roost, they have no problem setting their sights on us.
At least as reprehensible as Assad is he has only targeted Islamic thugs who we in the west have no problem arresting for being…terrorists. Hey I am not saying it is right he fights them , but they did kind of start the Bun fight and boy do they fight dirty and it takes an eastern mind in which to combat Islamic terrorism (Just look at the Jews)
Fed on a diet that war is wrong for over 22 years, the people (As well as the armed forces) are tired, they are sick to the teeth of having to be the worlds policeman, if as the left say that the UK is no longer a first world power then let the countries which have taken our place (China,India,Brazil etc) don the blue beret of peace and fight the good fight. Me I’m sick of war and its been my trade for far too long, 3 more years and I take off my uniform for good. Now if you wish to pick it up and wear it out in Syria be my guest, I will fully support you and as I do my mates currently ion Herrick I will send you Red
CrossCrescent parcels containing goodies , but as Syria like Afghanistan and Iraq is Islamic. I can’t send you any alcohol.
Got the Tee shirt, read the book, found myself in it and I say “NO”
Five stars for that Pounce!
After centuries of slaughter in islamized nations i came tot the conclusion that that is their culture. They obviously seem to like it, because if it’s not one sect who starts the bloodshed, it’s the other. So seeing this is a cultural thing i say let them go at it, pity for the children (i fail to see why it’s worse for children to die than adolescents but i guess it makes nice emotv). Nothing we can or should do about it, as long as they do their maiming amongst their own. One lesson should be clear by now, nothing that anybody can do will stop religious fanatics doing what they do.
But what about the poor innocent civilians you say? If it is true what is said, that the ratio of maniacs versus ‘moderates’ is in vastly favor of the moderates how on earth can it be this is going on for ages now? Evidently the maniacs have a cultfollowing among the ‘moderates’ who enable, else the maniacs couldn’t sustain such bloodshed over the 100’s of years.
So whilst there are innocents, they are mostly innocent in the sense they didn’t actually pull any trigger themselves.
My thoughts are if Israel comes under attack and looks like it needs help, then go in. Otherwise I couldn’t give a monkeys. As has been mentioned, whenever we have misguidedly tried to intervene we get sod all thanks.