More on Syria

[Puja]

Plus would a a Kurdish homeland over the border not want the land in Turkey currently occupied by Kurds? Forcibly moving out a entire group of people is pretty much ethnic cleansing, so unlikely to win too many friends.

I mean, it's not pretty much, it's the literal definition, but the international community hasn't appeared to give two short shits when Israel does it forcibly, so I don't expect Turkey would care too much about the reaction to them making life in that area shitty for Kurds and encouraging cross-border travel in one direction.

Note that this is not me advocating this as a good, moral, or correct policy - I am assuming Erdogan to act like a dickhead (ie, in character) and what he might want to do from a practical standpoint of removing the PKK threat, given that it's shown throughout history that one cannot remove a terrorist threat with force.

Mind, I'm not actually sure how much power Turkey have to prevent a Kurdistan in the currently Kurdish-controlled part of Syria. The rest of the rebels don't exactly have any power in that area to re-establish is as part of Syria, so even if Turkey withdraws support completely, would that have any great effect on their control of Western Syria? I'm assuming Turkey isn't planning on using their military to annex the land into their borders, although I guess anything's possible in 2024.

A situation involving a completely different Turkish leader might look at this as the opening point of negotiations - support a homeland in exchange for relinquishing all future claim to Turkish land and have the inevitable happen on their terms.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Netanyahu shits on international law, again. Lucky we don't have any land bordering Israel, maybe he'd fancy that too.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/ ... ons-depots

[Puja]

Netanyahu shits on international law, again. Lucky we don't have any land bordering Israel, maybe he'd fancy that too.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/ ... ons-depots

While I am loathe to defend Netanyahu and strongly disbelieve in any concept of him "temporarily" acquiring land, especially when he is backed by expansionists and settlers, I... can sort of understand that move. No-one's sure exactly what kind of government the Syrian rebel leader is going to create - he seems conciliatory and moderate so far and him dropping the nom-de-guerre is promising, but he's also backed by more than a few hardcore extremists and has made common cause with IS and Al Quaeda in the past, so it's not out of the question that Syria could get very hostile for Israel, very quickly, possibly as a rogue state that would have no compunction about moving military into the Heights themselves, possibly as a weak state who can't control access to Assad's chemical weapons or stop rogue elements from using them.

If it wasn't the genocidal, territory-stealing fuckwit ordering this, I'd say it's legitimately proactive self-defence, as Israel cannot afford to have the Golan Heights not under their control if there's the possibility of chemical weapons flying free.

Of course, because it is him ordering this, the next step is settlers creating towns, which then means they need a deeper buffer zone to protect *those* from "unprovoked attacks", so another bit of land has to sadly be annexed, just for self-defence...

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Netanyahu shits on international law, again. Lucky we don't have any land bordering Israel, maybe he'd fancy that too.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/ ... ons-depots

While I am loathe to defend Netanyahu and strongly disbelieve in any concept of him "temporarily" acquiring land, especially when he is backed by expansionists and settlers, I... can sort of understand that move. No-one's sure exactly what kind of government the Syrian rebel leader is going to create - he seems conciliatory and moderate so far and him dropping the nom-de-guerre is promising, but he's also backed by more than a few hardcore extremists and has made common cause with IS and Al Quaeda in the past, so it's not out of the question that Syria could get very hostile for Israel, very quickly, possibly as a rogue state that would have no compunction about moving military into the Heights themselves, possibly as a weak state who can't control access to Assad's chemical weapons or stop rogue elements from using them.

If it wasn't the genocidal, territory-stealing fuckwit ordering this, I'd say it's legitimately proactive self-defence, as Israel cannot afford to have the Golan Heights not under their control if there's the possibility of chemical weapons flying free.

Of course, because it is him ordering this, the next step is settlers creating towns, which then means they need a deeper buffer zone to protect *those* from "unprovoked attacks", so another bit of land has to sadly be annexed, just for self-defence...

Puja

I can't agree. Either laws are universally applied or they're not. 'Proactive self-defence' is indistinguishable from aggression, whether it's the Golan Heights, the West Bank, Soviet-controlled Eastern Europe, 'WMD-possessing' Iraq or wherever.

No one is completely safe. That's impossible . . . without killing everyone else. Short of that you have to make peace. We have in Europe (mostly), despite how inconceivable that must have seemed in 1945. Israel needs to make peace - it's the right thing to do, and in the long run it's the only way to survive.

[Puja]

Netanyahu shits on international law, again. Lucky we don't have any land bordering Israel, maybe he'd fancy that too.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/ ... ons-depots

While I am loathe to defend Netanyahu and strongly disbelieve in any concept of him "temporarily" acquiring land, especially when he is backed by expansionists and settlers, I... can sort of understand that move. No-one's sure exactly what kind of government the Syrian rebel leader is going to create - he seems conciliatory and moderate so far and him dropping the nom-de-guerre is promising, but he's also backed by more than a few hardcore extremists and has made common cause with IS and Al Quaeda in the past, so it's not out of the question that Syria could get very hostile for Israel, very quickly, possibly as a rogue state that would have no compunction about moving military into the Heights themselves, possibly as a weak state who can't control access to Assad's chemical weapons or stop rogue elements from using them.

If it wasn't the genocidal, territory-stealing fuckwit ordering this, I'd say it's legitimately proactive self-defence, as Israel cannot afford to have the Golan Heights not under their control if there's the possibility of chemical weapons flying free.

Of course, because it is him ordering this, the next step is settlers creating towns, which then means they need a deeper buffer zone to protect *those* from "unprovoked attacks", so another bit of land has to sadly be annexed, just for self-defence...

Puja

I can't agree. Either laws are universally applied or they're not. 'Proactive self-defence' is indistinguishable from aggression, whether it's the Golan Heights, the West Bank, Soviet-controlled Eastern Europe, 'WMD-possessing' Iraq or wherever.

No one is completely safe. That's impossible . . . without killing everyone else. Short of that you have to make peace. We have in Europe (mostly), despite how inconceivable that must have seemed in 1945. Israel needs to make peace - it's the right thing to do, and in the long run it's the only way to survive.

I would very much like to be on your side on this one, because it is the morally correct one, but from a practical perspective, the law only works as a shield if both sides adhere to it. It's a classic prisoner's dilemma - holistically the best result is no military in the Golan Heights, but as soon as there is a risk that there will be angry men with chemical weapons moving into that area, then the decision-space becomes smaller - Israel either obeys the law (lol) and leaves themselves vulnerable or they move in first.

Of course, there is a better long-term result to be gained from Israel trying to reduce the anger of the men with chemical weapons, rather than just reduce the number of living angry men, but that's not really been their style and certainly doesn't do much for the short-term.

Puja

[paddy no 11]

Pretty unlikely Israel will be happy with any new Syrian leadership/government so they'll just have to keep the buffer buffer zone eh?

[Puja]

Pretty unlikely Israel will be happy with any new Syrian leadership/government so they'll just have to keep the buffer buffer zone eh?

I am shocked - shocked - that you would imply that nice old man Bibi, who has never done anything wrong, might be mendacious.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

While I am loathe to defend Netanyahu and strongly disbelieve in any concept of him "temporarily" acquiring land, especially when he is backed by expansionists and settlers, I... can sort of understand that move. No-one's sure exactly what kind of government the Syrian rebel leader is going to create - he seems conciliatory and moderate so far and him dropping the nom-de-guerre is promising, but he's also backed by more than a few hardcore extremists and has made common cause with IS and Al Quaeda in the past, so it's not out of the question that Syria could get very hostile for Israel, very quickly, possibly as a rogue state that would have no compunction about moving military into the Heights themselves, possibly as a weak state who can't control access to Assad's chemical weapons or stop rogue elements from using them.

If it wasn't the genocidal, territory-stealing fuckwit ordering this, I'd say it's legitimately proactive self-defence, as Israel cannot afford to have the Golan Heights not under their control if there's the possibility of chemical weapons flying free.

Of course, because it is him ordering this, the next step is settlers creating towns, which then means they need a deeper buffer zone to protect *those* from "unprovoked attacks", so another bit of land has to sadly be annexed, just for self-defence...

Puja

I can't agree. Either laws are universally applied or they're not. 'Proactive self-defence' is indistinguishable from aggression, whether it's the Golan Heights, the West Bank, Soviet-controlled Eastern Europe, 'WMD-possessing' Iraq or wherever.

No one is completely safe. That's impossible . . . without killing everyone else. Short of that you have to make peace. We have in Europe (mostly), despite how inconceivable that must have seemed in 1945. Israel needs to make peace - it's the right thing to do, and in the long run it's the only way to survive.

I would very much like to be on your side on this one, because it is the morally correct one, but from a practical perspective, the law only works as a shield if both sides adhere to it. It's a classic prisoner's dilemma - holistically the best result is no military in the Golan Heights, but as soon as there is a risk that there will be angry men with chemical weapons moving into that area, then the decision-space becomes smaller - Israel either obeys the law (lol) and leaves themselves vulnerable or they move in first.

Of course, there is a better long-term result to be gained from Israel trying to reduce the anger of the men with chemical weapons, rather than just reduce the number of living angry men, but that's not really been their style and certainly doesn't do much for the short-term.

Puja

I don't believe in an abstract morality - if the action brings the best result (for everyone, now and in the future) then it's the right thing to do (obviously this is not always easy to work out, so rules and laws are useful). The morally correct choice is the right thing by definition. The 'practical perspective' usually means looking at things only from one point of view, acting as if only certain people matter.

If this was Israel temporarily stepping in to keep peace (until a multinational UN force could be brought in to do the job) while Syria is in an unstable state then that could be justified. But this is Israel unilaterally claiming Syrian land for eternity. That's entirely different. And wrong.

(I wouldn't bring the prisoner's dilemma into it. The dilemma stems from the binary choices AND the impossibility of gaining information about what the other player is going to do. That's not the real situation. Bringing the prisoner's dilemma into real situations usually leads to death on both sides as everyone 'defects'.)

Oh, and look, Israel's destroyed Syria's navy in a totally unprovoked attack. Because we let him get away with things he just gets more aggressive. When will we actually take steps to stop Israel's destabilization of the region?

[Puja]

I'd like to make it clear at this point that I am very much against Israel's and Netanyahu's colonialism and am in no way endorsing it or saying it's a good thing. Just wanted to emphasise that before any further discussion.

I don't believe in an abstract morality - if the action brings the best result (for everyone, now and in the future) then it's the right thing to do (obviously this is not always easy to work out, so rules and laws are useful). The morally correct choice is the right thing by definition. The 'practical perspective' usually means looking at things only from one point of view, acting as if only certain people matter.

I have to disagree on this. There are often gaps between the morally correct choice and the right thing to do and this is one situation. Morally correct is respecting treaties and the law, staying out of Golan, and offering an olive branch. However, if they take that approach and that leads to extremists launching chemical weapons from the Heights, was it the right thing to do?

Of course, the flip side of that is what you said - everyone defects and all are fucked together. Even if done with the best of intentions (which we can all agree, this is not), occupying the Heights will create more animosity, which will be breeding ground for extremists and terrorists, which means more violence, which means Israel then "must" crack down, which creates more problems, which then creates a "need" for them to acquire another "buffer zone".

If this was Israel temporarily stepping in to keep peace (until a multinational UN force could be brought in to do the job) while Syria is in an unstable state then that could be justified. But this is Israel unilaterally claiming Syrian land for eternity. That's entirely different. And wrong.

Yeah, not disagreeing with that. My sentence saying it could be considered self-defence to occupy that position had the fairly major caveat of "If it wasn't the genocidal, territory-stealing fuckwit ordering this".

Oh, and look, Israel's destroyed Syria's navy in a totally unprovoked attack. Because we let him get away with things he just gets more aggressive. When will we actually take steps to stop Israel's destabilization of the region?

Never, because Christo-fascist nutters run the US (regardless of the actual party in charge at the time), and Western militaries have tied themselves so tightly to the US that there's no chance of moving out of lockstep. Fucking appalling.

Puja

[Zhivago]

Let's not forget that he's emboldened because Trump will be in power soon.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I'd like to make it clear at this point that I am very much against Israel's and Netanyahu's colonialism and am in no way endorsing it or saying it's a good thing. Just wanted to emphasise that before any further discussion.

I don't believe in an abstract morality - if the action brings the best result (for everyone, now and in the future) then it's the right thing to do (obviously this is not always easy to work out, so rules and laws are useful). The morally correct choice is the right thing by definition. The 'practical perspective' usually means looking at things only from one point of view, acting as if only certain people matter.

I have to disagree on this. There are often gaps between the morally correct choice and the right thing to do and this is one situation. Morally correct is respecting treaties and the law, staying out of Golan, and offering an olive branch. However, if they take that approach and that leads to extremists launching chemical weapons from the Heights, was it the right thing to do?

Of course, the flip side of that is what you said - everyone defects and all are fucked together. Even if done with the best of intentions (which we can all agree, this is not), occupying the Heights will create more animosity, which will be breeding ground for extremists and terrorists, which means more violence, which means Israel then "must" crack down, which creates more problems, which then creates a "need" for them to acquire another "buffer zone".

If this was Israel temporarily stepping in to keep peace (until a multinational UN force could be brought in to do the job) while Syria is in an unstable state then that could be justified. But this is Israel unilaterally claiming Syrian land for eternity. That's entirely different. And wrong.

Yeah, not disagreeing with that. My sentence saying it could be considered self-defence to occupy that position had the fairly major caveat of "If it wasn't the genocidal, territory-stealing fuckwit ordering this".

Oh, and look, Israel's destroyed Syria's navy in a totally unprovoked attack. Because we let him get away with things he just gets more aggressive. When will we actually take steps to stop Israel's destabilization of the region?

Never, because Christo-fascist nutters run the US (regardless of the actual party in charge at the time), and Western militaries have tied themselves so tightly to the US that there's no chance of moving out of lockstep. Fucking appalling.

Puja

To some extent we're just disagreeing on semantics, ie the meaning of the word morality. I think you're using it in a slightly nonstandard way. It's 'the categorization of intentions, decisions and actions into those that are proper, or right, and those that are improper, or wrong'. 'Morally correct' doesn't mean 'following the rules'. Perhaps 'lawful' would be a better word for you to use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

But I'm not asking for lawfulness for its own sake. If there's truly a better overall outcome from lawbreaking, then that is the morally correct choice. However, as a rule of thumb, it's almost always (morally) better to be lawful. In part this is because undermining law causes wide-ranging harm. In part because, almost always, the lawbreaker is not considering the full impact the crime (ie victims are being ignored or their suffering downplayed). This is obviously happening here. It's clear that Netanyahu is completely disregarding the suffering of non-Israelis in his actions.

Occupy sections of Syria to reduce the risk of ineffectual missile attacks? Rain wide-ranging destruction on a country to prevent the possible risk of minor destruction being launched at Israel? If you think that it's justified for Israel to occupy sections of Syria to prevent attacks being launched from them, then surely you would think it's justified for Syria to occupy sections of Israel to prevent attacks being launched from them? If you apply that same yardstick, both countries are justified in invading the other? This is justification for never-ending war. (Or should I say, war ending only in the total destruction of one side - which is exactly what the Israelis are carrying out in Palestine).

No one can be completely safe. We have to live with certain risks. We have to find a way to make peace. NB I'm not arguing for total pacifism: in defence we need to threaten a proportionate response, tit-for-tat, any less encourages the psychopaths of the world, any more brings escalation.

[paddy no 11]

After 2 days of calm, it appears turkey has given the go ahead for the taking of kurdish occupied territory. With trump incoming the yanks could go missing here.

[Son of Mathonwy]

After 2 days of calm, it appears turkey has given the go ahead for the taking of kurdish occupied territory. With trump incoming the yanks could go missing here.

Let's all invade Syria!

[paddy no 11]

After 2 days of calm, it appears turkey has given the go ahead for the taking of kurdish occupied territory. With trump incoming the yanks could go missing here.

Let's all invade Syria!

Pile in


Turkish/kurdish/Israeli/moderate jihadi/fundamentalist jihadi/Christian/i want to be a democrat/carve up

(I missed the popular front )

[Sandydragon]

I'd like to make it clear at this point that I am very much against Israel's and Netanyahu's colonialism and am in no way endorsing it or saying it's a good thing. Just wanted to emphasise that before any further discussion.

I don't believe in an abstract morality - if the action brings the best result (for everyone, now and in the future) then it's the right thing to do (obviously this is not always easy to work out, so rules and laws are useful). The morally correct choice is the right thing by definition. The 'practical perspective' usually means looking at things only from one point of view, acting as if only certain people matter.

I have to disagree on this. There are often gaps between the morally correct choice and the right thing to do and this is one situation. Morally correct is respecting treaties and the law, staying out of Golan, and offering an olive branch. However, if they take that approach and that leads to extremists launching chemical weapons from the Heights, was it the right thing to do?

Of course, the flip side of that is what you said - everyone defects and all are fucked together. Even if done with the best of intentions (which we can all agree, this is not), occupying the Heights will create more animosity, which will be breeding ground for extremists and terrorists, which means more violence, which means Israel then "must" crack down, which creates more problems, which then creates a "need" for them to acquire another "buffer zone".

If this was Israel temporarily stepping in to keep peace (until a multinational UN force could be brought in to do the job) while Syria is in an unstable state then that could be justified. But this is Israel unilaterally claiming Syrian land for eternity. That's entirely different. And wrong.

Yeah, not disagreeing with that. My sentence saying it could be considered self-defence to occupy that position had the fairly major caveat of "If it wasn't the genocidal, territory-stealing fuckwit ordering this".

Oh, and look, Israel's destroyed Syria's navy in a totally unprovoked attack. Because we let him get away with things he just gets more aggressive. When will we actually take steps to stop Israel's destabilization of the region?

Never, because Christo-fascist nutters run the US (regardless of the actual party in charge at the time), and Western militaries have tied themselves so tightly to the US that there's no chance of moving out of lockstep. Fucking appalling.

Puja

This is a difficult one, as I'm sure we all want Syria to become a properly functioning country that respects the rights of its own people and is a good neighbour in the region. At the moment, its a mess and I suspect the fighting isnt over. As Paddy mentioned, Turkey is now pushing action against Kurdish forces (that will end badly) and ISIS are beginning to emerge from the rocks they have been hiding under.

It would be remarkably foolish of any government to allow the capture of munitions, especially chemical or biological ones, to be captured by extremists who don't recognise your right to exist. It doesnt look nice and Netanyahu is an easy person to despise, but in this case I think he is doing the right thing. The odds are Syria will go to rat shit, safeguarding the security of his own country must be his first priority, the same as it would be for any other national leader.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I'd like to make it clear at this point that I am very much against Israel's and Netanyahu's colonialism and am in no way endorsing it or saying it's a good thing. Just wanted to emphasise that before any further discussion.

I don't believe in an abstract morality - if the action brings the best result (for everyone, now and in the future) then it's the right thing to do (obviously this is not always easy to work out, so rules and laws are useful). The morally correct choice is the right thing by definition. The 'practical perspective' usually means looking at things only from one point of view, acting as if only certain people matter.

I have to disagree on this. There are often gaps between the morally correct choice and the right thing to do and this is one situation. Morally correct is respecting treaties and the law, staying out of Golan, and offering an olive branch. However, if they take that approach and that leads to extremists launching chemical weapons from the Heights, was it the right thing to do?

Of course, the flip side of that is what you said - everyone defects and all are fucked together. Even if done with the best of intentions (which we can all agree, this is not), occupying the Heights will create more animosity, which will be breeding ground for extremists and terrorists, which means more violence, which means Israel then "must" crack down, which creates more problems, which then creates a "need" for them to acquire another "buffer zone".

If this was Israel temporarily stepping in to keep peace (until a multinational UN force could be brought in to do the job) while Syria is in an unstable state then that could be justified. But this is Israel unilaterally claiming Syrian land for eternity. That's entirely different. And wrong.

Yeah, not disagreeing with that. My sentence saying it could be considered self-defence to occupy that position had the fairly major caveat of "If it wasn't the genocidal, territory-stealing fuckwit ordering this".

Oh, and look, Israel's destroyed Syria's navy in a totally unprovoked attack. Because we let him get away with things he just gets more aggressive. When will we actually take steps to stop Israel's destabilization of the region?

Never, because Christo-fascist nutters run the US (regardless of the actual party in charge at the time), and Western militaries have tied themselves so tightly to the US that there's no chance of moving out of lockstep. Fucking appalling.

Puja

This is a difficult one, as I'm sure we all want Syria to become a properly functioning country that respects the rights of its own people and is a good neighbour in the region. At the moment, its a mess and I suspect the fighting isnt over. As Paddy mentioned, Turkey is now pushing action against Kurdish forces (that will end badly) and ISIS are beginning to emerge from the rocks they have been hiding under.

It would be remarkably foolish of any government to allow the capture of munitions, especially chemical or biological ones, to be captured by extremists who don't recognise your right to exist. It doesnt look nice and Netanyahu is an easy person to despise, but in this case I think he is doing the right thing. The odds are Syria will go to rat shit, safeguarding the security of his own country must be his first priority, the same as it would be for any other national leader.

In that case I assume you would, by the same argument, approve of Syria, or any nearby nation taking action against Israel and blowing up its weapons in case (or because as a matter of fact) they are used against them? That would be safeguarding the security of their own country, as you say.

[Sandydragon]

I'd like to make it clear at this point that I am very much against Israel's and Netanyahu's colonialism and am in no way endorsing it or saying it's a good thing. Just wanted to emphasise that before any further discussion.



I have to disagree on this. There are often gaps between the morally correct choice and the right thing to do and this is one situation. Morally correct is respecting treaties and the law, staying out of Golan, and offering an olive branch. However, if they take that approach and that leads to extremists launching chemical weapons from the Heights, was it the right thing to do?

Of course, the flip side of that is what you said - everyone defects and all are fucked together. Even if done with the best of intentions (which we can all agree, this is not), occupying the Heights will create more animosity, which will be breeding ground for extremists and terrorists, which means more violence, which means Israel then "must" crack down, which creates more problems, which then creates a "need" for them to acquire another "buffer zone".



Yeah, not disagreeing with that. My sentence saying it could be considered self-defence to occupy that position had the fairly major caveat of "If it wasn't the genocidal, territory-stealing fuckwit ordering this".


Never, because Christo-fascist nutters run the US (regardless of the actual party in charge at the time), and Western militaries have tied themselves so tightly to the US that there's no chance of moving out of lockstep. Fucking appalling.

Puja

This is a difficult one, as I'm sure we all want Syria to become a properly functioning country that respects the rights of its own people and is a good neighbour in the region. At the moment, its a mess and I suspect the fighting isnt over. As Paddy mentioned, Turkey is now pushing action against Kurdish forces (that will end badly) and ISIS are beginning to emerge from the rocks they have been hiding under.

It would be remarkably foolish of any government to allow the capture of munitions, especially chemical or biological ones, to be captured by extremists who don't recognise your right to exist. It doesnt look nice and Netanyahu is an easy person to despise, but in this case I think he is doing the right thing. The odds are Syria will go to rat shit, safeguarding the security of his own country must be his first priority, the same as it would be for any other national leader.

In that case I assume you would, by the same argument, approve of Syria, or any nearby nation taking action against Israel and blowing up its weapons in case (or because as a matter of fact) they are used against them? That would be safeguarding the security of their own country, as you say.

The pre-emptive strike needs to be justifiable. Syria has been sponsoring terrorism against Israel for years so is hardly a neutral party waiting for an aggressor to attack.

Take Israel and Netanyahu out of the argument. If a radical terrorist group suddenly took charge of France would the British government:

A- think happy thoughts and hope for the best, or
B- take steps to secure or deny weapons of mass destruction?

[Which Tyler]

Don't we need to separate out the relatively surgical strikes disabling Syria's military and ammo dumps, with the colonial land-grab (following on from a colonial land grab, and decades of colonial land-grabs).

It's probably illegal, but I've no moral problem with the missile and air strikes.
I had a problem with the earlier land invasion, and the post-toppling land invasion.

[Stom]

This is a difficult one, as I'm sure we all want Syria to become a properly functioning country that respects the rights of its own people and is a good neighbour in the region. At the moment, its a mess and I suspect the fighting isnt over. As Paddy mentioned, Turkey is now pushing action against Kurdish forces (that will end badly) and ISIS are beginning to emerge from the rocks they have been hiding under.

It would be remarkably foolish of any government to allow the capture of munitions, especially chemical or biological ones, to be captured by extremists who don't recognise your right to exist. It doesnt look nice and Netanyahu is an easy person to despise, but in this case I think he is doing the right thing. The odds are Syria will go to rat shit, safeguarding the security of his own country must be his first priority, the same as it would be for any other national leader.

In that case I assume you would, by the same argument, approve of Syria, or any nearby nation taking action against Israel and blowing up its weapons in case (or because as a matter of fact) they are used against them? That would be safeguarding the security of their own country, as you say.

The pre-emptive strike needs to be justifiable. Syria has been sponsoring terrorism against Israel for years so is hardly a neutral party waiting for an aggressor to attack.

Take Israel and Netanyahu out of the argument. If a radical terrorist group suddenly took charge of France would the British government:

A- think happy thoughts and hope for the best, or
B- take steps to secure or deny weapons of mass destruction?

Look, if a bully attacks you...

Let's take the bully out of it for a moment. Why would you hit someone? Why would you defend yourself? There's obviously no reason at all, because, after all, we've taken the bully out of the equation.

[Son of Mathonwy]

This is a difficult one, as I'm sure we all want Syria to become a properly functioning country that respects the rights of its own people and is a good neighbour in the region. At the moment, its a mess and I suspect the fighting isnt over. As Paddy mentioned, Turkey is now pushing action against Kurdish forces (that will end badly) and ISIS are beginning to emerge from the rocks they have been hiding under.

It would be remarkably foolish of any government to allow the capture of munitions, especially chemical or biological ones, to be captured by extremists who don't recognise your right to exist. It doesnt look nice and Netanyahu is an easy person to despise, but in this case I think he is doing the right thing. The odds are Syria will go to rat shit, safeguarding the security of his own country must be his first priority, the same as it would be for any other national leader.

In that case I assume you would, by the same argument, approve of Syria, or any nearby nation taking action against Israel and blowing up its weapons in case (or because as a matter of fact) they are used against them? That would be safeguarding the security of their own country, as you say.

The pre-emptive strike needs to be justifiable. Syria has been sponsoring terrorism against Israel for years so is hardly a neutral party waiting for an aggressor to attack.

Take Israel and Netanyahu out of the argument. If a radical terrorist group suddenly took charge of France would the British government:

A- think happy thoughts and hope for the best, or
B- take steps to secure or deny weapons of mass destruction?

1. I'd be interested in your reply to my post:

I assume you would, by the same argument, approve of Syria, or any nearby nation taking action against Israel and blowing up its weapons in case (or because as a matter of fact) they are used by Israel against them?

2. Re your hypothetical about France. France has a fleet of nuclear armed submarines which we would be unable to locate, attacking France would bring us into conflict with not only France but potentially the EU and NATO as well. So obviously not B. Would you, really?

3. Your use of the term 'weapons of mass destruction' is interesting as it was either coined for, or came into general usage for the US and UK's justification for their illegal invasion of Iraq. The purpose of this term was to conflate chemical and biological weapons (nasty but not obviously more so than many conventional weapons) and inconceivably deadly fusion-based nuclear weapons (approximately 1000 times more powerful than the city-levelling Hiroshima and Nagasaki fission devices), so as to make a case for an unprovoked invasion.

4. Let's not pretend the Israeli actions are about WMDs. They're attacking all kinds of Syrian weapons, and grabbing more land, simply because the opportunity has arisen due to chaos in the country.