www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20762098

David Cameron has warned there was a "strategic" as well as "moral imperative" to act as the death toll in Syria mounts.

The prime minister told MPs: "Syria is attracting and empowering a new cohort of al-Qaeda-linked extremists".

He also saw a growing risk of "drawing regional powers into direct conflict".

The PM said European leaders had agreed, at their recent summit, on the need to review the arms embargo to help opponents to President Bashar al-Assad.

Mr Cameron said: "A humanitarian crisis is unfolding in Syria on our watch, with over 40,000 dead and millions in need of urgent assistance as a hard winter approaches.

"We continue to encourage political transition from the top and to support the opposition which is attempting to force a transition from below.

"This should include and will include looking at the arms embargo. We must now explore all options to support the opposition to enable greater support for the protection of civilians."

He said there a "strategic imperative to act" because "Syria is attracting and empowering a new cohort of al-Qaeda-linked extremists".

Is it just me that takes offense at this?

Through the use of third parties, the West has been supplying arms and training to the FSA for months and the FSA have been working alongside Al Queda affiliates. Now the British gov flip it and say because Al Queda are there they'd best start arming the FSA...

I want to get off this planet. I really do.

"Syrians are being killed left, right and centre, what they really need now is a shit load more weaponry in circulation"

No. It's not just you that takes offence it Dub. It's diabolical, and I don't know how this stuff goes unchallenged.

It doesn't go unchallenged Gilly the problem is that not enough of us challenge it. And then when elections come along at least half the electorate give them the mandate to do it

Is half the electorates vote a real 'mandate'?

diamondgeezer wrote:
Not in my book.

Just had a look and in the 2001 election, turnout was 59%. 2005, 61%. 2010, 65%.

The tories got 31% in 2010 and the lib dems got 23%. So between them they got 54% of the 65%.
By my basic and quick maths that means they got something like 36/7% of the possible voters and they deem that a mandate to do all this shite. 63/4% didn't vote for them. They are a minority. So much for RA's theory that majority rules

dubmeup wrote:
And eligible voters means people on the electoral register, not all adults.

Exactly Oi. The 16/17 year olds in the forces didn't get a chance to vote for example.

Sorry, the Tory vote was 36%.....That makes it ok then I guess

Nor in mine.

edit - the recent voter turnout to elect new police commissioner/s was what again? 14%. (and in some areas of Manchester it was 0% apparently)

90% of people voted for the three main parties at the last election, and I think a large proportion of the remainder voted for nationalist parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. So as far as I'm concerned that is a majority mandate for what is going on. That is 9 in 10 people saying that despite everything that's happened they're still going to suck it up and vote for the mainstream parties. I suppose you could give the Lib Dem voters a small get out (I wouldn't) by saying that they perhaps genuinely believed that they'd stick to some of their supposed policies and principles. You'd have to be pretty naive to believe that would happen, but I suppose you could claim that is the case. It wouldn't make a rat's arse of a difference whether the blue, red or yellow bullshitters were in a position of power with regards to foreign policy (or almost any policy of significance, for that matter) so, to repeat myself, that is a 90% majority mandate, as far as I'm concerned, for no change whatsoever.

Watch 90% of people turn up at the next election and still vote for the main three parties in a slightly different denomination and proportion.

And on the subject of the OP it is sickeningly hypocritical. But unsurprising. They rely on at least nine-tenths of the public living in a state of almost total ignorance, and they're still batting on a pretty safe wicket with regards to that one.

To clarify that's 90% of those that actually voted. Which is roughly 59/60% of the eligible voters.

dubmeup wrote: Don't worry, I certainly count myself among the 40% who didn't vote!

It's just getting surreal now:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20825820

Syria has acted to consolidate its chemical weapons into "one or two" places to prevent rebels capturing them, Russia's foreign minister says.

Sergei Lavrov said the weapons had previously been "scattered" across the country and they were "under control" for the time being.

Mr Lavrov also said President Bashar al-Assad had no plans to leave Syria.

Rebels have been fighting the Assad government for 21 months. Activists say some 44,000 people have been killed.

Meanwhile in Syria on Saturday, activists said a car bomb had exploded in an eastern district of the capital, Damascus, killing at least five people.

Mr Lavrov told journalists on a flight returning to Moscow from an EU-Russia summit in Brussels: "According to the information we have, as well as the data of the US and European special services, the [Syrian] government is doing everything to secure [its chemical stockpiles].

"The Syrian government has concentrated the stockpiles in one or two centres, unlike the past when they were scattered across the country."
Mr Lavrov said the biggest threat from Syria's chemical weapons would be if militants managed to capture them.

The US fears Syria may be tempted to use the weapons if its situation becomes more desperate.

Mike Rogers, the chairman of the US House Committee on Intelligence, told the BBC a regional plan was needed to secure the weapons "immediately".

"If not, we're going to have a very major destabilising event in the region," Mr Rogers said.
US President Barack Obama warned President Assad this month he would face "consequences" if chemical weapons were turned on the Syrian people, saying it would be "totally unacceptable".

The US has said this would be a "red line" that might trigger military intervention.

Mr Lavrov said he believed Western powers had no appetite to intervene.

"I have the feeling that they are praying for Russia and China to continue blocking permission for external intervention. Because if there is such a decision, they will have to act, and no-one is ready to act."

Mr Lavrov said he believed neither side could win the civil war, and that President Assad was not going to leave.

"Assad is not going anywhere, no matter what anyone says, be it China or Russia," Mr Lavrov said.

He said some regional powers had asked Moscow to mediate for Mr Assad to leave.

Mr Lavrov said he told them: "Why do we have to do it? If you have these plans, go to him yourselves."

Inside Syria, the UK-based opposition activist group, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, said a car bomb had exploded in the eastern Damascus district of Qaboun, killing at least five people and injuring dozens.

It also reported that rebel forces had warned two predominantly Christian towns they could come under attack.

The rebels said the towns of Mahrada and Sqailbiyeh in Hama province were being used by government forces to launch attacks.

The Observatory also said there were clashes between rebels and government forces in the south of the capital, in the Hajar al-Aswad district.

The Observatory says more than 44,000 people have been killed in the past 21 months of unrest, including nearly 31,000 civilians.