British Parliament Votes Against Military Intervention In Syria

[spookyturtle 9,465]

LONDON — British Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vote endorsing military action against Syria by 13 votes Thursday, a stunning defeat that will almost guarantee that Britain plays no direct role in any U.S. attack on Bashar Assad's government.

A grim-faced Cameron conceded after the vote that "the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action."

The prime minister said that while he still believed in a "tough response" to the alleged use of chemical weapons by Assad's regime, he would respect the will of Parliament.

Responding to the vote, the White House said that a decision on a possible military strike against Syria will be guided by America's best interests, suggesting the U.S. may act alone if other nations won't help.

The defeat was as dramatic as it was unexpected. At the start of the week, Cameron had seemed poised to join Washington in possible military action against Assad. The suspected chemical weapons attacks took place Aug. 21 in suburbs east and west of Damascus. The humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders has said the strikes killed 355 people.

Gruesome images of sickened men, women and children writhing on the floor drew outrage from across the world, and Cameron recalled Parliament from its summer break for an emergency vote, which was widely seen as a prelude to international action.

"The video footage illustrates some of the most sickening human suffering imaginable," Cameron told lawmakers before the vote, arguing that the most dangerous thing to do was to "stand back and do nothing."

But the push for strikes against the Syrian regime began to lose momentum as questions were raised about the intelligence underpinning the move. During a debate with lawmakers, he conceded that there was still a sliver of uncertainty about whether Assad truly was behind the attacks.

"In the end there is no 100 percent certainty about who is responsible," Cameron said, although he insisted that officials were still as "as certain as possible" that Assad's forces were responsible.

That was not enough for Britain's Labour Party, which is still smarting from its ill-fated decision to champion the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The party announced its opposition to the move despite Cameron's concessions, which included a promise to give U.N. inspectors time to report back to the Security Council and to do his outmost to secure a resolution there.

He also promised to give lawmakers a second vote in a bid to assuage fears that Britain was being rushed into an attack.

Cameron's impassioned pleas and hours of debate failed to dispel lingering suspicions that what was billed as a limited campaign would turn into an Iraq-style quagmire, and the prime minister lost the late-night vote 285-272. Some lawmakers shouted: "Resign!"

Tony Travers, the director of the government department at the London School of Economics, said Cameron had clearly miscalculated when he brought Parliament back early from its summer recess. He said the move had been unpopular even within Cameron's Conservative Party.

"Clearly this will be seen as a defeat, it suggests he got the politics wrong, both with the opposition and with some members of his own party," Travers said. "It's not great, it's not brilliant, nor is it the end of the world for him. He's lost votes before. It doesn't necessarily stop them taking further action, but they are going to have to start again really."

He said there was "not a lot" of public support for British military activity in Syria.

Defense Secretary Philip Hammond confirmed that British forces would not be involved in any potential strike, something he said would doubtless upset Washington – and please Assad.

"It is certainly going to place some strain on the special relationship," Hammond told BBC radio. "The Americans do understand the parliamentary process that we have to go through.... Common sense must tell us that the Assad regime is going to be a little bit less uncomfortable tonight as a result of this decision in Parliament."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/british-parliament-syria-vote_n_3839067.html?1377812423&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D365978

[mota bhai 2,675]

Good. Leave Syria alone!

[Pooky 3,784]

Will President Obama ask for the backing of Congress, in the light of this?

[mota bhai 2,675]

[Sousuke 1,214]

Will President Obama ask for the backing of Congress, in the light of this?

Probably not and one might argue he'll look worse than Bush in this crisis in that Bush had British backing.

[Pooky 3,784]

Probably not and one might argue he'll look worse than Bush in this crisis in that Bush had British backing.

How ironic that BushBaby was backed by Tony Blair's Labour (Socialist) government, but Obama won't be supported by the Cameron/Clegg Conservative/Liberal one, which has asserted that it will respect the decision of Parliament.

[Jacque67 7,328]

Hooray!

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

Travers said. "It's not great, it's not brilliant, nor is it the end of the world for him. He's lost votes before. It doesn't necessarily stop them taking further action, but they are going to have to start again really."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/british-parliament-syria-vote_n_3839067.html?1377812423&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D365978

Actually while the article says that the defeat wasn't expected it was in fact expected because he doesn't hold the majority in Parliament, but he was going to fight for it anyways.

It's also true according to the quoted statement that Cameron can go around the vote and take further action. They've already sent RAF into position in Cyprus. I think what they're waiting for is confirmation that it was Assad's regime that was responsible for the attack, which the UN investigation will come back positive for. Though that may take time and the US seems in a rush about taking actions in Syria lately. They say it's because Assad will only use the chemical weapons again.

Edited August 30, 2013 by ॐ

[lostinblue 1,989]

No doubt racism played a part in their decision.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

No doubt racism played a part in their decision.

#######?????

[Pooky 3,784]

Actually while the article says that the defeat wasn't expected it was in fact expected because he doesn't hold the majority in Parliament, but he was going to fight for it anyways.

It's also true according to the quoted statement that Cameron can go around the vote and take further action. They've already sent RAF into position in Cyprus. I think what they're waiting for is confirmation that it was Assad's regime that was responsible for the attack, which the UN investigation will come back positive for. Though that may take time and the US seems in a rush about taking actions in Syria lately. They say it's because Assad will only use the chemical weapons again.

The RAF deployment is of 6 Typhoons, for the defense of British military assets, most notably RAF Akrotiri, in Cyprus.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/typhoons-deploying-to-cyprus

They are air-to-air assets and are not configured for air-to-ground operations.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Pooky

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I think what they're waiting for is confirmation that it was Assad's regime that was responsible for the attack, which the UN investigation will come back positive for. Though that may take time and the US seems in a rush about taking actions in Syria lately. They say it's because Assad will only use the chemical weapons again.

Didn't you know that Syrian "rebels" took control of Syria's only chlorine gas factory in Aleppo in August 2012 ?

And in May of this year, Syrian "rebels" (members of al Nusra Front) were caught with cannisters of Sarin just across the border in Turkey.

Al Nusra has been called "the most aggressive and successful" segment of the Syrian rebels. It is affiliated with al Qaeda and has been designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack

Gavlak is a MintPress News Middle East correspondent who has been freelancing for the AP as a Amman, Jordan correspondent for nearly a decade. This report is not an Associated Press article; rather it is exclusive to MintPress News.

Ghouta, Syria As the machinery for a U.S.-led military intervention in Syria gathers pace following last weeks chemical weapons attack, the U.S. and its allies may be targeting the wrong culprit.

Interviews with people in Damascus and Ghouta, a suburb of the Syrian capital, where the humanitarian agency Doctors Without Borders said at least 355 people had died last week from what it believed to be a neurotoxic agent, appear to indicate as much.

The U.S., Britain, and France as well as the Arab League have accused the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for carrying out the chemical weapons attack, which mainly targeted civilians. U.S. warships are stationed in the Mediterranean Sea to launch military strikes against Syria in punishment for carrying out a massive chemical weapons attack. The U.S. and others are not interested in examining any contrary evidence, with U.S Secretary of State John Kerry saying Monday that Assads guilt was a judgment already clear to the world.

However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.

My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry, said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a tube-like structure while others were like a huge gas bottle.

Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels.

Abdel-Moneim said his son and the others died during the chemical weapons attack. That same day, the militant group Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaida, announced that it would similarly attack civilians in the Assad regimes heartland of Latakia on Syrias western coast, in purported retaliation.

They didnt tell us what these arms were or how to use them, complained a female fighter named K. We didnt know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.

When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them, she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.

A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named J agreed. Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material, he said.

We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions, J said.

Doctors who treated the chemical weapons attack victims cautioned interviewers to be careful about asking questions regarding who, exactly, was responsible for the deadly assault.

The humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders added that health workers aiding 3,600 patients also reported experiencing similar symptoms, including frothing at the mouth, respiratory distress, convulsions and blurry vision. The group has not been able to independently verify the information.

More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/syrians-in-ghouta-claim-saudi-supplied-rebels-behind-chemical-attack/5347487?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syrians-in-ghouta-claim-saudi-supplied-rebels-behind-chemical-attack

Edited September 1, 2013 by The Patriot

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

The GCHQ listening post on Mount Troodos in Cyprus is arguably the most valued asset which the UK contributes to UK/US intelligence cooperation. The communications intercept agencies, GCHQ in the UK and NSA in the US, share all their intelligence reports (as do the CIA and MI6). Troodos is valued enormously by the NSA. It monitors all radio, satellite and microwave traffic across the Middle East, ranging from Egypt and Eastern Libya right through to the Caucasus. Even almost all landline telephone communication in this region is routed through microwave links at some stage, picked up on Troodos.

Troodos is highly effective – the jewel in the crown of British intelligence. Its capacity and efficiency, as well as its reach, is staggering. The US do not have their own comparable facility for the Middle East. I should state that I have actually been inside all of this facility and been fully briefed on its operations and capabilities, while I was head of the FCO Cyprus Section in the early 1990s. This is fact, not speculation.

It is therefore very strange, to say the least, that John Kerry claims to have access to communications intercepts of Syrian military and officials organising chemical weapons attacks, which intercepts were not available to the British Joint Intelligence Committee.

On one level the explanation is simple. The intercept evidence was provided to the USA by Mossad, according to my own well placed source in the Washington intelligence community. Intelligence provided by a third party is not automatically shared with the UK, and indeed Israel specifies it should not be.

But the inescapable question is this. Mossad have nothing comparable to the Troodos operation. The reported content of the conversations fits exactly with key tasking for Troodos, and would have tripped all the triggers. How can Troodos have missed this if Mossad got it? The only remote possibility is that all the conversations went on a purely landline route, on which Mossad have a physical wire tap, but that is very unlikely in a number of ways - not least nowadays the purely landline route.

Israel has repeatedly been involved in the Syrian civil war, carrying out a number of illegal bombings and missile strikes over many months. This absolutely illegal activity by Israel- which has killed a great many civilians, including children - has brought no condemnation at all from the West. Israel has now provided “intelligence” to the United States designed to allow the United States to join in with Israel’s bombing and missile campaign.

...

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/08/the-troodos-conundrum/