Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
SO, HERE WE go again…
One of the main political issues of the last five years is back in the spotlight again this week, in the wake of the election.
Water charges featured only sporadically in coverage of the campaign. A major march in Dublin the Saturday before polling day refocused some attention on the issue, but even that was overshadowed by the furore surrounding Enda Kenny’s ‘whingers’ comment the same weekend.
Of course, those who have been campaigning for the abolition of water charges for the last two years would argue that the subject has never been off the agenda.
And this morning, the AAA’s Ruth Coppinger and Paul Murphy asserted in a statement that Fianna Fáil would never have shifted their position on charges were it not for the pressure applied by the ‘we won’t pay’ campaign.
Since Tuesday night, water charges and Irish Water have been dominating the news agenda once again (with just the occasional break for recount results).
So in the wake of an election where, as Tom McGurk noted in the Sunday Business Post at the weekend, the ‘don’t knows’ appeared to win, what now for the beleaguered utility?
Will we see a boycott of Irish Water gather pace?
Will charges be scrapped?
Can charges be scrapped?
Your questions, answered…
Let’s start big – what is Irish Water?
In short, a utility incorporated in 2013 to combine the public water and wastewater services of the the 31 local authorities. Of course it’s much, much more than that too… The set-up and roll-out of Irish Water was, without a doubt, the most controversial project overseen by the Fine Gael/Labour government (click here for a rundown on the various scandals). A campaign to scrap fees gathered pace at the end of 2014, forcing the coalition to scale-down the charging regime dramatically. They also brought in capped fees and a €100 rebate in the wake of several large-scale protests.
The government, in particular the Labour Party, took a hammering in the polls and ultimately at the ballot box as a result.
Why is it back in the news now?
Because of the election result – or, more to the point, the lack of one.
Fine Gael and Labour support the retention of Irish Water and water charges as they now are – but Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin, the Social Democrats and the AAA-PBP campaigned to scrap the charges.
A quick glance at the make-up of the new Dáil underscores the scale of the divide:
So what are the parties saying?
As far as it goes with Fine Gael, it depends who you ask. Simon Coveney, the outgoing defence and agriculture minister, said on Tuesday night that the party “would be willing” to discuss the issue of water charges in post-election talks.
Speaking yesterday, however, Enda Kenny insisted that people should continue to pay their water bills, telling reporters he thought it would be “a seriously costly and seriously historic mistake to move away from having a single national utility”.
Fianna Fáil have been challenging the legitimacy of that stance, however – with Dara Calleary yesterday pointing out that the majority of TDs in the 32nd Dáil now want to abolish water charges.
“We were very clear during the campaign that we would abolish Irish Water, that we would suspend water charges for five years [and] would not give refunds,” Calleary insisted.
Gerry Adams weighed in on the issue today, saying the charge must be abolished, while the AAA-PBP have said they will vigorously pursue the issue in the coming days.
Sorry, what was that about no refunds?
Indeed. In fairness, Fianna Fáil did say during the campaign that they didn’t envisage refunds being given out in the event that charges were suspended.
The party made it clear in the last few weeks that it would push for management of water supply to be returned to local authorities, and for Irish Water to be downsized into a national oversight body modelled on the National Roads Authority.
The ‘no refund’ thing probably won’t go down to well, will it?
No, not really – there’s every possibility we could see a whole new set of protests in the event that charges are scrapped and there’s no opportunities for people who have paid to avail of refunds.
Speaking yesterday, former Fine Gael councillor and Dublin lord mayor Gerry Breen said he would launch an action in the courts in such an event.
“I would go in and take a case against the State for the two-thirds of people who have paid or are paying their water charges,” he told Liveline.
Speaking this morning, the AAA-PBP’s Coppinger said she would “completely favour” the charges being refunded “because it was a completely unviable tax”.
So what happens now?
We’ve only seen the first few stumbling steps towards forming a new government so far.
With Fine Gael now 29 seats short of the 79 needed for an overall Dáil majority, joining forces with Fianna Fáil appears to be its only choice for forming a stable government.
There are a few other combinations that could technically work – but the final tally of seats has led to increased speculation that Fine Gael could lead a minority government, with Micheál Martin’s party supporting them on a case by case basis.
The arithmetic of the new Dáil means Fianna Fáil can legitimately claim they have a mandate to argue for the scrapping of water charges in any talks that lead to such an arrangement.
What would it cost to get rid of Irish Water anyway?
It depends who you ask – but internal figures from the utility, published in the Irish Times yesterday, put the figure at €7 billion over the next five years. That would include some €100 million in cash costs – to include paying off staff not transferred to work at local authorities, the cost of breaking leases and the cost of transferring back property already put into the utility’s ownership.
In an analysis of those figures, RTÉ’s economics correspondent Sean Whelan put the cost at between €5.5 and €6.7 billion.
Speaking this morning, Coppinger said the €7 billion figure was “totally spurious” and called for a fresh, independent examination of the issue.
And… What’s the story legally?
It’s complicated. So complicated that it requires another ‘explainer’… Fortunately TheJournal.ie’s Dan MacGuill has already done the research, and you can read his exhaustive take on the situation here…
As Dan puts it, ‘Simple question – VERY complicated answer’.
In short, the European Commission’s Water Framework Directive may be the main stumbling block here.
Article 9 of that directive gave every country until 2010 to:
Ensure that water-pricing policies provide adequate incentives for users to use water resources efficiently, and thereby contribute to the environmental objectives of this Directive.
However, Article 9.4 allowed something of a loophole, known as the Irish exemption, which meant countries could, if they didn’t have an “established practice” of water charges, find some other way to encourage conservation and other environmental aims.
Michael Doherty – an expert in EU Labour law and policy and professor of Law at Maynooth University – told us that while that exemption may have applied to Ireland in previous years, now that we do have water charges, “it might now be difficult to argue that it is ‘established practice’ in Ireland not to have them”.
Told you it was complicated. Now clear yourself 15 minutes and read Dan’s article.
What’s Irish Water been saying?
What you’d expect it to really.
“Irish Water remains absolutely focussed on the vital job of fixing Ireland’s water services,” the company told us in a statement.
61% of customers had paid bills at the end of the latest billing cycle, it added.
The spokesperson’s statement also made a number of points about current arguments being put forward by those in favour of scrapping charges, arguing:
So should I pay my Irish Water bill?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Ok well if there is a ” body of evidence” can you please show it to the public Mr Hollande or at the very least the people of Syria.
Assad is no genius but could it be even possible to comprehend that he’d be that stupid as to use chemical weapons at the exact time that there are international inspectors in the country ? Seems all too easy to me.
Try telling that to the media led masses. They fell for it with Sadams non-existant WMDs, they sre falling for this aswell.
Who says Assad is giving the direct order to use them? It is also just as likely that the army has a little autonomy when it comes to small-scale deployment of chemical weapons.
Chemical agents are a strategic asset in most countries that posses them and not generally distributed along with high explosive and smoke/phosphorus shells to artillery shells and I believe this to be the case in Syria as well, especially when they know that if they did use them that it would bring the wrath of the western nations upon them.
If the French have the “body of evidence…” why are they even bothering to insist on a the inspection. Can we please see the proof?
It will also be interesting to know the make up of the inspector team. Certain countries have much to gain from the reporting that they will provide.
after david Kelly no inspector is going to say that asaad didn’t use gas.
Your full of it lad
If Hollande has concrete evidence he should present it.I for one have my doubts.If you look at this what benefit does Assad gain from launching a Chemical attack?I certainly would not put it past Al Qaeda/Rebels ‘martyring’ a few hundred children in order to gain Western intervention.
Even if Assad was responsible the West needs to stay out of this mess.Murder is murder whether it’s by bullets,rockets,artillery or gas.This is a horrific slaughter with bad guys on both sides.
al,
concrete evidence from a unsa spokesman? Are you mad, we, like good sheep must believe our truthful leaders, leaders who have never lied to us and leaders who would never lie to us.
now where’s my wool?
After the WMD Iraq debacle,Im not so sure the ‘sheep’ are willing to just unquestionally swallow whatever guff our leaders decide to tell us.I see far more of a critical eye from the comments BTL then anything you are likely to read ATL in any mainstream media outlet.This can only be a good thing.
Al Shamen, the Syrian government has confirmed that they have stockpiles of chemical weaponry and their minister of defence has already threatened to use them on any foreign nation trying to get involved in the war. There are no ifs, buts or maybes about Syria having chemical weapons.
To the point of what Assad has to gain, in truth he has very little to gain. That does not mean that the army has nothing to gain. Using chemical weapons on the rebel forces would significantly damage rebel morale on top of the casualties it would inflict. The war has been on for a long time and the army would love to end it tomorrow if it could. The army can use chemical weapons on the small scale and blame it on the rebels (loading warheads with half-loads to make it seem like a small bomb) and if it is proven the army used them then Assad will bear the brunt of the media fallout.
All of what you say has merit.But the fact remains,judging on their actions so far,Al Qaeda/Rebels are just as capable of perpetrating this attack in order to facilitate Western intervention.
The Armament’s industries in the USA & Europe are in recession and need an output for there products. France & the UK have a history of involvement in Syria and can’t stop themselves thinking of Empires lost.
So are we going to see that evidence?
Here we go again, WMD, chemical weapons.
Assad is winning the war, the unsa, French and brits wanted him to lose. In fact they were hoping that the terrorist skum would have beaten Assad by now.
Wake up Russia, China, Iran ffs, WAKE UP. BEFORE THE UNSA DESTROY US ALL.
Unsa? Is that some monster that Jim Corr dreamt up?
united nations states of amerikaw
Tom
Was Clarke too ordinary a name for you?
The order to use chemical weapons came from high up in Assad’s regime as the truth about this war crime emerges.
Appealing to Russia, China and Iran is laughable at best. You can say a lot about the west but the countries you listed off have a terrible human rights track record in comparison. The relatively recent atrocities committed by the Russians in the Chechen Wars just add to an extensive list of war crimes committed by the Russians over the last 100 years. That’s without even touching on China or Iran.
Jason you forgot Ireland .
Jason
no one has a worse human rights record than the usa, 6 million dead in south America over the last 50 years, a million dead in Iraq, plus afghan etc.
open your eyes.
Here is a lecture by Ibrahim Al-Marashi, talking about Al-Assad’s WMD program, and if and in what circumstances he might use WMD in the civil war…
If Assad really cared about his people and country he would step aside to prevent any further deaths of Syrias citizens. Obviously he is on his own little ego trip, why anyone would allow one man to think he is more important than 100k’s of innocent s is beyond belief.
Still waiting for a credible explanation about why the side winning the war would do the one thing that would virtually guarantee their defeat…..
Anyone else notice that the stories dealing with the Saudis being implicated in the chemical attacks have mysteriously disappeared??
werejammin,
I have noticed, in fact, the Saudis seem to be written out of everything that they start. Weren’t the 9/11 ‘hijackers’ filmed in a Saudi shopping centred months after 9/11?
Assad and his family have lead a dictatorship over Syria for over 40 years. It’s really difficult to get a real picture about what’s going on, and what media reports to accept as credible. But I do know one thing – Assad’s time has come. Syria needs to hold a open, internationally monitored election and let the people of Syria decide their future. It’s clear right now, they don’t have much of a choice in the matter.
I fear that a physical overthrow of Assad (which would have merit), might lead to Islamic fundamentalists seize power – ultimately creating a new set of problems for the Syrian people. But, if he’s unwilling to step aside – not many options are on the table.
If it is true however that Assad’s regime has used chemical weapons (and I’m inclined to believe it has), then he should be removed by all means necessary and be tried in an international court. While we posture on the internet about each scenario – the Syrian people are suffering. If ever a conflict warranted international intervention, then surely this is one of them.
Thoughts?
‘I fear that a physical overthrow of Assad might lead to Islamic fundamentalists seize power’
just what kind of skum will you see in power if Assad loses the war, which is what the west is hoping for.
This is not about the freedom loving west wanting to free Syria, it’s about the west wanting the middle east to be like a headless chicken.
It’s hard to know what’s true in the media anymore
What’s your proposals then Tom? Allow Assad to continue to hold his dictatorship, and sweep everything under the carpet?
The majority of the Syrian people want asaad, the majority of the Libyan people wanted Gadhafi. The west should stay out.
The west do not want to help the Syrians, they want to make sure that Syria has a western friendly government.
“The majority of the Syrian people want asaad”
Do you have credible opinion polls to back this statement up? It’s very easy to make statements like that without verifying it.
Given the choice between Assad, and open democratic elections – I suspect the figures might not be as supportive for your statement. Still – we’ll never know because Assad’s family have held a dictatorship over Syria for 4 decades.
‘If ever a conflict warranted international intervention, then surely this is one of them’ This is an internal sectarian civil war and really none of our business.Both sides in all likelihood have already used chemical weapons but what difference does it make?Murder is murder whether by knives,bullets,artillery or gas.
I think it is a fairly naive viewpoint to believe International intervention will save lives.It would inevtiably involve a massive bombing campaign and would need boots on the ground to ensure victory over Assad.Syria is not the same as Libya.Assad has far more popular support than Gaddafi ever did.
The idea that we should stand by and do nothing is a hard lesson we should have learnt already, Rwanda? Serbia?
What’s happening in Syria is nothing short of attempted genocide..
People seem to have short memories, remember it was the French who founded modern Syria and handed power to one ethic group (just like what the British did in Iraq) so it is our problem..
I feel it’s the responsibility of those with power to intervene, how we do that is another question..
It’s very easy to say they don’t want him and who is telling u they want him gone the us the uk
@Edward Malone
Genocide by who?Assad or Al Qaeda/Rebels.This is not a as clearcut as you seem to think.And no it’s not our problem,Syria has been independant for 80 years.Plenty of time to get it’s own house in order.
“This is an internal sectarian civil war and really none of our business.”
So wait, because we’re not directly involved it’s none of our business? Is that the line you take on every conflict on the planet? The reality is – thousands of people are being massacred. If ever the international community had a duty to prevent loss of life, it’s now.
And that doesn’t mean we need to intervene by bombing the shit out of Syria. We could setup safe zones to protect the civilian population.
I didn’t state genocide was one sided here, both sides seem to want to kill as many as the other as they can…
Are you really saying Europe doesn’t have to answer for the many states it badly setup as a result of colonialism?
We owe nothing to Africa?
@ Sean O Briain
To set up ‘safe zones’ it would be necessary to invade parts Syria with thousands of troops.This of course would have to involve a massive bombing campaign as it is highly unlikely the Syrian Government is going to sit back while it’s sovereign national territory is invaded by the West.Once our troops are on the ground they would of course be prime targets for Al Qaeda/Rebels.I don’t think you have thought this through.
@Edward Malone
In a word no.We owe them nothing.Those nations have been independant for at least 50 years.Plenty of time to get their act together.They cannot blame the white man for their own failures indefinetly.
Re Sean.
The US regime, I’m using regime as you described the Syrian government as a regime, has used Chemical Weapons in Iraq?
Has the US President been held accountable and responsible? I’m just following your simplistic argument.
To all but the bunnies out there this chemical attack was obviously not carried out by Syrian forces.
What evidence is there of the U.S. using chemical weapons in Iraq? There is however, documented evidence of Saddam Hussein using chemical weapons against his own people.
The US used Chemical Weapons in Falujah in Iraq. They used White Phosphorous in civilian neighbourhoods, which is classed as a chemical weapon when used on civilian populations.
The US also conducted a nuclear war in Iraq. Depleted uranium litters Iraq now.
Let’s not detract from the topic at hand.
We know many Western countries have psychotic leaderships as is evident from their hypocritical actions, it is a disgrace that Western media allow people such as the US President, the French President and the UK Prime Minister to speak uncontested.
Evidence???
Re Declan.
Are you telling me your totally unaware of the use of White Phosphorous in Falujah by the US military which subsequent investigations have shown was deliberate. Do a bit of research.
You could look at the extremely high birth defects in Falujah as a direct result of contamination from White Phosphorous and Depleted Uranium.
Enough.
Classing the use of Depleted Uranium Penetrators as nuclear warfare has got to be your most blatant exaggeration to date. Sure you might as well accuse the US of conducting nuclear warfare against their own tank crews as their vehicles are partially protected by Depleted Uranium.
Depleted Uranium weapons are not conventional weapons they are nuclear weapons.
Then what do they do and what is their purpose Seoirse? Please do enlighten everyone.
Depleted is a radioactive substance.
Do you understand that? Do you know what radiation is?
The depleted uranium if it stays in the ground remains radioactive and contaminates all that comes into with it.
The depleted uranium if it vaporises on impact gets dispersed in the air anywhere up to 15/20 miles and should a person breathe it in will suffer from radioactive like illnesses.
Funny Seoirse, because the World Health Organisation doesn’t seem to agree with you. According to their research there are very few long-term consequences from the use of Depleted Uranium Penetrators. See Depleted Uranium is actually used quite a lot around us, including in civilian aviation and in radiation shielding. Clearly it is nowhere near as bad as your melodrama would suggest.
I take it your silence is an acceptance of the fact that the World Health Organisation knows a little more about the topic than you do.
All of these innocent people die because of one man’s huge ego. How does this differ to Hitler. And we all stand by.
The funny but on the chemical bombs is written – made in USA
Actually Syria has a national chemical weapons programme which home produced Syria’s extensive stockpile. It is illegal to sell chemical weaponry but sure don’t let facts get in the way of your anti-US ranting.
I’m sure the Syrian government used chemical weapons in a war they are winning just so they can be bombed back into the 19th century by the French and US airforce.
U.S. official: Assad behind chemical attack
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/25/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html
Lordy, Tom. While your essential point may be correct , you overdo it with the tinfoil hat stuff.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this was the rebels killing their own in order to force the hand of the external powers that are loosely in their cramp.
Assad may be a venal dictator, but for all that I would not believe he would jeperdise the victory that was nearly in his sights by using what are falsely put in the same bracket as nuclear weapons.
As if killing innocent people with bombs bullets , knives etc , is in someway more humane that chemicals , I’d argue its the opposite.
I think the difference with chemicals is how indiscriminate such attacks are. Nobody in the vicinity has much of a chance. Also, having your nervous system pulverised by toxic chemicals may be more torturous than a conventional attack – although not in all cases.
@Peter Tarasov
I guess artillery barrages are surgical in nature?Suicide bombings must also be surgical in nature?
Nobody batted an eye when Israel used phosphorous bombs on the Palestenians. No red line there. Funny that really. Or not
Or the Americans in Falluja.” Do as we say, not as we do”
al shamen — Familiarise yourself with the meaning of the word ‘relative’.
More garbage from petr
where were the chemical weapons made, for that matter where were any of the weapons used against civilians made, investigation reports should point the finger, guilty nations should pay substantial costs for every death.
The Syrian government manufactures their chemical weapons locally while their army uses a mixture of armaments from various nations.
An important piece of information regarding the known actions of France in Syria so far.
They directly supported the rebels in Aleppo over a year ago at this stage(provided financing, training, arms, recognition).
The very first act of the Syrian ‘rebels’ in Aleppo which France supported was to ban all women from driving.
There was no statement from Hollande.
Don’t believe a word
‘Cause words can tell lies
Anyone find it odd that the very pretext the Americans needed to invade Syria has happened?
The UN will begin inspecting the site on Monday.
you mean the UNSA?
Jim Corr’s imagination gave the unsa life…
gerard,
Are you saying that the us does not control the un?
Yes
Russia and China have been blocking any move from the UN to condemn what is happening in Syria for the last year and a half. But sure don’t let facts get in the way of your bizarre obsession with the idea that the US controls the UN.
You don’t need the media to know that Assad is an evil dictator who has ruled for far too long, the evidence of his crimes are all over the Internet and are clear to be seen,I’ve never been for military intervention but I really can’t see how the world can sit back and allows so many innocent civilians to be murdered by his regime, surely enough is enough. The poison coming out of Russia china and Iran isn’t helping either,
Obama is much worse than asaad.
That comment is inane. And I am no fan of Obama.
What’s insane about it?? And do you think i was born yesterday the whole world knows Obama is responsible terrible crimes and two wrongs don’t make a right!!! But you tell me the alternative Margaret please???
Margaret,
put on your blinkers, you might see the truth here.
sean,
Asaad isn’t doing the gassing, wake up, smell the coffee.
I didn’t say insane, I said inane. I’ve two words for you, moral relativity.
Your being very foolish please enlighten us all to what the correct action to take should it be and I stress should it be proved the Assad regime used them against their own people? The UN inspectors are now being allowed in
It seems highly probable that the Assad regime is responsible for the chemical warfare atrocities. It is well established Syria has been manufacturing chemical weapons for the last 20 years, the Assad Regime is known for its brutality which it asserts is justified in so as to retain power, it seems rather far fetched that opposition forces would commit such an atrocity against their own people. The Assad regime considers that it is in a desperate life or death struggle.
Sometimes, the facts are as they appear to be.
It may be more comfortable and less problematical to think that the chemical warfare attack was self inflicted but, based on the limited available evidence, the high probability is that the Assad Regime is responsible for this horrendous attack.
‘It seems highly probable that the Assad regime is responsible for the chemical warfare atrocities.’
Where is the evidence for this statement?
‘it seems rather far fetched that opposition forces would commit such an atrocity against their own people’
A comment that is extreme and stunning in it’s naivety.It’s obvious you have no clue of the nature of this conflict Al Qaeda/Rebels have commited countless atrocities against the Syrian people.This is a fact backed up documented evidence unlike most of your post.
peter,
the world is the way it is because of dangerous brainwashed people like you.
Butt out, you have nothing but bullshit to offer.
Why should Peter ‘butt out’? Is his opinion not as valid as yours. Are you remarkably insightful, intelligent, erudite, informed or educated such that your opinion is more worthy? I think not somehow but please, do tell.
@Tom Daly Clarke
Peter is one-hundred percent entitled to his opinion naive as it may be.We do believe in free speech afterall.
‘Are you remarkably insightful, intelligent, erudite, informed or educated such that your opinion is more worthy?’
yes
Tom is a troll and nothing more going by his extensive list of confrontational comments lately.
Al shamen, I don’t have an intelligence team based in Syria but, if I had evidence, my proposition would not be a matter of probability but a matter of certainty.
Government forces in Syria possess chemical weapons. I have seen no evidence that opposition forces possess chemical weapons or the means of delivery.
If you have evidence to rebut my opinion on probability, I would be pleased to look at it. The matter is not yet closed. Thank you.
Tom Daly Clarke, I have reviewed your comments. Your comments exhibit delusions of infallibility. Your views are eccentrics and somewhat idiosyncratic ally expressed.
I shall continue to comment. There I’d freedom of expression in Ireland which permits your idiocy a platform. Enjoy.
I have a theory admittedly I have no evidence ( but many “experts” here have none either) I think it may have been an “accident” by that I don’t mean in the conventional sense. The regime or the opposition may have been storing the perhaps to use in a doomsday (for either side) situation, and with so many explosions going on, one may have set off the WMD. Ok far fetched but who knows, as the old saying goes in war the first casualty is the truth
@Bill
It’s certainly a plausible possibility that a conventional Assad strike hit a rebel CW store, inadvertently causing such horrific consequences. I wouldn’t rule it out anyway.
It’s clearly time to act. Send in the drones then send in the mediators. In that order.
Send in Martin Byrne.
I’d love to see Assad taken out of the picture. Put on trial? Maybe. But when I see pictures of gassed children I would have no hesitation is putting a bullet in the bastard’s head. It’s a shame on the rest of the world that it wasn’t done last year.
@Martin Byrne
You perhaps should familiarize yourself with this conflict before commenting on it.It appears you know little about it.
martin byrne
it appears you’ve swallowed a lump of propaganda
Nobody wins if any nation gets involved militarily in Syria. If the US, Russia or anyone else sent troops in to support one side the results would look very similar to Iraq or Afghanistan.
Don’t forget Iran they won’t stand idly by either
Meanwhile Obama is playing Allegro non molto,The 4 Seasons: Violin Concerto in G Minor on his fiddle.
Hollande should watch Channel 4 news:
http://www.channel4.com/news/syria-images-chemical-attack-damascus-us-barack-obama-video <
‘A Syrian opposition spokesman told Channel 4 News’
That says everything about that video.
Since when are terrorists known as opposition spokesmen?
In times of war even c4 news and the guardian fall in to place.
… There is no way of independently verifying these images, but they are consistent with all the film that’s emerged since Wednesday’s attack near Damascus.
That says everything about the video.
I would love to know who Tom is very hard to believe the credibility of people with egg faces!!
I don’t trust Francois Hollande on this.
Remember the supposed ‘weapons of mass destruction’ that were supposed to be in Iraq, before the US invasion.
The majority of Syrian people want Assad in power. Christians & other minority groups living in Syria, have always been well tolerated & treated by Assad. – Something that is rare in the middle east.
The rebels are mercenaries, funded & backed from outside the country. Assad has provided a stable government, something that these rebels won’t or can’t.
Once Assad is gone it will just be, even worse chaos & bloodshed.
What relevance does the alleging of WMD’s in Iraq have to do with Syria? By throwing up that ridiculously irrelevant point you’re acting just like how you accuse the main media outlets in the west of acting. Stick to the standards you expect others to abide by.
Also, how does nearly 2 years of civil war class as providing a stable government? Even your beloved sources in Russia don’t accuse the rebels of being entirely a foreign force like you are so quick to baselessly accuse. By the way nobody on here has ever provided the evidence to back that claim.
I wonder if anybody quickly blamed the Japanese government for the 1992 Sarin attack on the subway system in Tokyo.
It is actually quite frightening what a few individuals can do with so little of a nerve agent.
Thirteen people died, fifty were severely injured and it caused temporary vision problems to nearly a thousand others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway
The United States have no intentions of militarily getting involved with Syria, they learnt there lessons when the two big towers came tumbling down.
Sure the US haven’t been involved in any military operations since that happened now have they? Oh wait, yes they have.
the whole truth comes out quicker and quicker surrounding issues such as these! too many countries are jumping the gun here and doing so under our watch!!
Correct Gearoid, on all sides.
have your say