David Cameron: Safe passage for Syria's Assad acceptable

[Gerald]

UK Prime Minister David Cameron says he would back offering President Bashar al-Assad safe passage out of Syria if it ended the bloodshed there.

Mr Cameron said the international community should consider anything "to get that man out of the country".

He also told al-Arabiya TV he would favour Mr Assad "facing the full force of international law and justice".

Amnesty International criticised Mr Cameron for "talking about immunity deals for President Assad".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20223759


Note: 6 November 2012 Last updated at 14:39 GMT

[geetrue]

Where would he stand trial for the murder of thousands of innocent peoples?

[Catfish]

Maybe he will be able to find, or even offered, a suitable hole in the ground. Maybe in Florida ?

[Herr-Berbunch]

Only safe passage out of Syria was mentioned, along with 'facing the full force of international law and justice'.

What are Amnesty International reading?

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch

Only safe passage out of Syria was mentioned, along with 'facing the full force of international law and justice'.

What are Amnesty International reading?

It would appear me to me to be something along the lines of the Beano

[Gerald]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beano Right?

[Jimbuna]

[Skybird]

Cameron - Wichtigtuer.

It is neither up to Cameron nor to anyone else outside Syria to suggest or to offer free passage for Assad. The only ones needing to decide whether or not they let Assad go unharmed after all what he did, or not letting him escape via a free ride, are the Syrians themselves. And nobody else. No Western or Arab or Persian or Turkish or Russian politician. No international court. No UN. Nobody else. Let the Syrians settle this issue themselves. It has been their blood.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Let the Syrians settle this issue themselves. It has been their blood.

Normally I'd agree, but that would surely depend on which Syrian you asked?

If a mob gets their hands on him a la Gaddafi he's dead without any form of trial. Or if he gets his own way then all his opposition will be killed.

Why shouldn't a non-biased, self-appointed international body be the judge?

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Cameron - Wichtigtuer.

It is neither up to Cameron nor to anyone else outside Syria to suggest or to offer free passage for Assad. The only ones needing to decide whether or not they let Assad go unharmed after all what he did, or not letting him escape via a free ride, are the Syrians themselves. And nobody else. No Western or Arab or Persian or Turkish or Russian politician. No international court. No UN. Nobody else. Let the Syrians settle this issue themselves. It has been their blood.

Agreed

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch

Normally I'd agree, but that would surely depend on which Syrian you asked?

If a mob gets their hands on him a la Gaddafi he's dead without any form of trial. Or if he gets his own way then all his opposition will be killed.

Why shouldn't a non-biased, self-appointed international body be the judge?

We have had no stakes in it, and have made no committements ourselves. Our soldiers' blood has not been spilled, and whether or not Assad gets executed with or without trial, or the Syrian people pardon him and let him leave, honestly said is of no interest for me. The want to slaughter him? Fine. They want to trial and execute him? Fine. They forgive him? Fine - I would not understand it, but okay, not my business, so that would be fine with me as well, in the end.

[Hakahura]

Not as bad or abhorrent an idea as it first seems.
It could be sensibly argued that one reason dictators (Gaddafi / Hussein) hang on till the bitter end, is that they have no choice, no get out route.
If saving innocent lives it what we are all really concerned with then offering these monsters a way out is actually the moral choice.
Providing of course the dictator in question is willing to take it.
So at risk of upsetting those who oppose for the sake of opposing...
Well done Dave, for having the courage to say this out loud. Let’s hope he takes you up on it.
After all what is the alternative? Let the slaughter continue? Intervene?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Hakahura

Not as bad or abhorrent an idea as it first seems.
It could be sensibly argued that one reason dictators (Gaddafi / Hussein) hang on till the bitter end, is that they have no choice, no get out route.
If saving innocent lives it what we are all really concerned with then offering these monsters a way out is actually the moral choice.
Providing of course the dictator in question is willing to take it.
So at risk of upsetting those who oppose for the sake of opposing...
Well done Dave, for having the courage to say this out loud. Let’s hope he takes you up on it.
After all what is the alternative? Let the slaughter continue? Intervene?

By that logic, the Russians and Allies should have talked Hitler into exile.

If we had sacrifices ourselves, then we would have a word in Assad's fate. But we have not. It is not up to us foreigners to impose our morals - or lack of - onto the Syrians. They have spilled their blood, they decide what to do and what deal to rule out. Your or mine or our morals or lack of morals play no role in that.

We tried to settle Bosnia. Kosovo. Iraq. Afghanistan. Egypt. Libya. - And at the last minute we avoided to get drawn into Georgia.

Give it a break. We were not really successful, weren't we? In all six cases we got exactly the opposite of what we wanted.

It's the Syrians' blood that got spilled. And that counts more than our morals or ideas of what they should do now.

BTW, if we talk Assad into exile, by that we help to establish most likely another opposite of what we would like to see in Syria. Maybe we cannot prevent that anyway. But at least we must not actively help it for sure.

[Gerald]

^Ok!