‘At first it seemed like Armistice Day…..The resemblance soon passed, but it is peace, however high the price and whoever has had to pay it’
It might seem churlish to express any doubts about the Munich agreement, given this tremendous outpouring of gratitude and relief. But doubts there are. Of course, having accepted, under enormous pressure, the terms of an agreement dismembering their country that they were not party to, the Czechs are none too happy about it: there have been massive protests in the streets of Prague.
The BBC has gone from hero worship of Ed Miliband after the vote on Syria to painting him a potential villain of the piece….or peace.
Nicky Campbell talking about Syria opened with the question: (08:12)
‘How many people are going to die now Ed Miliband has put the brakes on taking action over Syria?’
But such difficult questions seem beyond Victoria Derbyshire who let Labour’s Chuka Umunna spout a stream of hypocritical dross without challenge (10:40)….this is not so much ‘bias’ just outright bad journalism, a lack of awareness of issues, what is being said and what that means in the context of other events….and she misses out on a big hit against Labour and its hypocrisy in the vote on Syria.
It is reported that the government granted an export license for dual use chemicals that could be used to produce chemical weapons….these chemicals were not at the time banned by the EU for export.
The full details are as yet unknown, needless to say Labour are shouting loudly claiming the Government is being hypocritical for possibly allowing the export of such materials…..‘It beggars belief…reckless and negligent….the government has serious questions to answer.’
The ever bright and ‘with it’ Chuka told us that this was outrageous. He tells us that the Joint Intelligence Committee had provided intelligence which proved that the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons in the past….and that the production of these weapons may have been enabled by the government if the export had gone ahead…which it hadn’t.
Whoa …whoa there fella…..hang on…the JIC provided proof that chemical weapons had been used…which you now accept as ‘proof”?
Only a couple of days ago Labour was demanding ‘compelling evidence’ of chemical weapons being used…and denying there was any…on which basis they refused to vote even for the approval of the principle of military action.
So now Labour accepts chemical weapons were used and it has been proved.
Derbyshire didn’t pick that up at all…..surely a major point of interest for any journalist looking for a ‘scoop’?
The whole basis of Labour’s ‘principled’ stance in the vote was that there was no real evidence. But it seems there was…..or good enough for them to accept it now when politically convenient.
Labour may claim it was looking solely at the use of chemical weapons on the 21st August but why is that different from its use before that?
Labour’s amendment to the vote stated that this qualification should be added to the government motion:
This House further notes that such action relates solely to efforts to deter the use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any wider action in Syria.
The JIC said the regime used chemical weapons 14 times previous to the 21st August…..why does Labour think that only the attack on the 21st August is the ‘red line’ that should precipitate action…but only if ‘proven’ to be by the regime?
Labour didn’t believe the JIC last week, why has it suddenly changed its mind?
After all this sounds pretty compelling to me, probably 100% certain of regime use of CW, and ‘highly likely’ it was the regime on the 21st August:
We have assessed previously that the Syrian regime used lethal CW on 14 occasions from 2012. This judgement was made with the highest possible level of certainty following an exhaustive review by the Joint Intelligence Organisation of intelligence reports plus diplomatic and open sources.
We think that there have been other attacks although we do not have the same degree of confidence in the evidence. A clear pattern of regime use has therefore been established.
There is no credible intelligence or other evidence to substantiate the claims or the possession of CW by the opposition. The JIC has therefore concluded that there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility.
Against that background, the JIC concluded that it is highly likely that the regime was responsible for the CW attacks on 21 August.
And note this…Miliband will also have been privy to the actual intelligence and not just the letter:
Some of this intelligence is highly sensitive but you have had access to it all.
5Live ‘Bringing you all the breaking news’
Interesting thought. If it had been proved that the opposition had been the users of CW, would we have been launching a strike against them in support of Assad?
Great question. If BBC were doing their job they would be asking that of every supporter of intervention ,including Cameron and St Obama.
‘If BBC were doing their job’
I see what you did there.
Luckily the BBC is not here to answer questions or, thanks to FOI exclusions, explain anything about even those they ask.
It’s unique.
I do not think anyone on any side of the debate claims that chemical weapons were not used. Everyone accepts that they have been used.
Where the debate now lies is in WHO used them. It is known that chemical weapons have been used before in March. The UN investigated their use when 200 people were gassed. Obama came out with his red-lines then… Then the investigation concluded that the rebels had used Sarin provided to them from Saudi Arabia (who are funding and arming and training the most vile of the Islamic extremist terrorist groups in Syria). Then the West went very quiet indeed.
The West sent the signal back then, that using Sarin was acceptable, so long as it was the western backed terrorists using it.
In this latest case, lots of those clamouring for war have stated with certainty that Assad used Sarin. The only thing they lack is actual proof, However I am certain that they are very busy manufacturing that proof as I speak.
Do not accept their evidence at face value, question everything. They lied and lied and lied again over Iraq and are doing the same again.
Do not be a fool and fall for the exact same lies all over again.
The JIC provide NO evidence whatsoever for their claims of 14 previous uses of lethal CW. NONE.
Most of what evidence they provide of this latest case boils down to “we saw it on twitter, so it must be true, oh and there is some other secret stuff we cannot tell you”
They have form for lying. Both Dossiers for the Iraq invasion were filled with lies, or old information sexed up and falsely packaged as latest, up to the minute, intelligence.
This latest report reads like it was left to an office junior to write. It is blatant nonesense.
I have no regard for Miliband’s filthy, imorral and opportunist politicing over the need to use our military, and even less regard for how he appears to be changing his mind yet again, but Parliament made the right decision last week.
If other nations want to make a very grave mistake, in supporting Al Qaeda in Syria by attacking the forces that were winning against them, then let them do so without British involvement.
Do we really want to risk world war three against Russia, in order to make it easier for Al Qaeda to use the Saudi supplied Sarin gas to kill even more innocents in Syria? Really?
We should keep out of it.
Re: Ms Derbyshire you don’t expect her to pick up anything of script – living proof that Newsnight really has sunk to Newsround level of analysis and insight.
As an aside but picking up on the importance of evidence interesting link below – I wonder how long it will take for an msm source to investigate – lots of lies and stitch ups on both sides – so why can’t the BBC et al reflect the more realistic view of the majority of the UK population (despite their best efforts) and essentially put a curse on both their houses and let them get on with it, “But think of the children” – it seems reasonable that both sides have them although obviously as far as the msm is concerned Christian ones seem to be of less worth in reporting terms.
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/08/27/i-will-bring-just-one-sarin-sarin-gas-says-fsa-jihadist-rebel/
Agree with the sentiments expressed above about the UK keeping well clear of this. How does this civil war affect the UK national interest? Is it clear to us that the victory of one side is much better for us than the victory of the other? I don’t think so , so we should stay out of it.
If only the liberal left, and their mouth piece the BBC, could stop parading their much preened consciences and just think what is best for the UK. But of course they don’t really care about the UK and the people who live here do they?
No link, but this from my evening C4 ‘Snowmail’:
‘Syrian rebels: America will bomb us too
Extraordinary information from amongst the jihadist fighters in Syria: an American Muslim convert who has been filming with them for 12 months, tells me in an interview tonight that they were convinced that an attack that they expected last week would target not only Assad’s resources – but their own.
He reports that there was frenetic activity across the north of Syria by jihadist fighters. He adds that they are convinced that they will be on the American target list if Congress approves an attack.
Now, there’s a thing. Tub of Mardell will have a conniption.
#grabspopcorn.