Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Apr 20 18:43:37 2018

Utopia Talk / Politics / Syria: Clusterfuck #2...
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Mon Apr 16 08:16:09

Syria: Clusterfuck ..

swordtail
Anarchist Prime Fri Apr 13 18:24:19

Sky News cut off the former commander of British Armed Forces Jonathan Shaw over Syria

Hot Rod
Revved Up
Mon Apr 16 08:17:14

jergul
large member Mon Apr 16 03:02:17

HR
There is a fundamental law against attacking other countries. "Members shall refrain from the use of force, or the threat of force against other members" The UN charter.

Nevermind an attack based on social media imagery release by parties that had hopes of gaining big time from an attack.

Hot Rod
Revved Up
Mon Apr 16 08:41:53

There is also a fundamental law enacted by, I believe, The League of Nations in 1924.

I may be wrong about the details there, but it has been against International Law since the 1920's.


Unfortunately, a single veto in the Security Council can prevent a United Nations-sanctioned response which was done by one of the bad actors in the scenario.

This being the case a collation of three of the West's Security Council Members decided to give the nation that breached this law a punishment by attacking their ability to make further chemical attacks in the future. Not counting the chemicals that were prepared and survived the attack.

BTW, the intelligence agencies of all three of those countries were convinced their intel was solid.


It is times like this that I recall one of my hairbrained ideas from a few years ago.

It would be nice if The United Nations had at their disposal seven mobile infantry divisions, three armored divisions, an air wing, and a couple of Carrier Groups to be used against countries that violate such International Laws such as using chemical weapons.


As I said, a hairbrained scheme. :)

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Apr 16 11:06:52
Cluster fuck. Hehe
Flustered cuck ahahahahaha

Genius!
Paramount
Member
Mon Apr 16 11:23:41
”Unfortunately, a single veto in the Security Council can prevent a United Nations-sanctioned response which was done by one of the bad actors in the scenario. ”

That may be unfortunate. But the SC is working as intended. Or should I say, it worked until some members decided to violate the veto, the UN charter, and internarional law by making a military attack.

This just means that other countries does not need to respect US vetos in the future. Like, if USA vetos actions against Israel, everyone can just say fkck you and attack Israel or punish it with sanctions.
Paramount
Member
Mon Apr 16 11:48:54
”by attacking their ability to make further chemical attacks in the future.” - Himmler Rod


At destroyed Syria lab, workers say they produce antidotes to snake venom not toxic weapons

“The building had three storeys: a basement, ground floor, and second floor,” said Said Said, an engineer who identified himself as head of the centre’s paint and plastics department.

“It had labs and departments that were unfortunately completely destroyed, with all their equipment and furniture. Thank God, no one was here,” he told AFP.

The site, according to Western powers, was part of the Syrian government’s “chemical weapons infrastructure.”

But Said told AFP only non-lethal research and development was under way at the centre.

“As we work in civilian pharmaceutical and chemical research, we did not expect that we would be hit,” he said.

Instead, the centre had been producing antidotes to scorpion and snake venom while running tests on chemical products used in making food, medicine and children’s toys, according to Said.

“If there were chemical weapons, we would not be able to stand here. I’ve been here since 5:30 am in full health -- I’m not coughing,” he added.

Said said the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons had visited the site in Barzeh in recent years and had declared it free of any toxic weapons.

“The OPCW used to stay in the two upper rooms, and use the labs, and we would cooperate with them completely,” he said.

“The OPCW has proven in two reports that this building and the centre as a whole are empty and do not produce any chemical weapons.”

http://www...ry-e2OIzVf2RqPMMuRK0XdK0H.html


Why does the USA always lie and fail? Always.

USA, France and Britain needs to stand trial for war crimes.
jergul
large member
Mon Apr 16 12:10:54
MOSCOW, April 16. /TASS/.The US and its allies sought to hit Syrian military targets, including airfields, during their missile strike, Russian Defense Ministry Spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov said on Monday.

"The true targets of the strike delivered by the US, the UK and France on April 14 were both facilities in Barzeh and Jaramani and Syrian military facilities, including airfields," he said.

According to Konashenkov, a photo of a facility located in the Barzeh area shows that "the destruction caused by the missile strike does not correspond to the scale of destruction from the use of three dozen cruise missiles." "Moreover, the survey of this and other facilities revealed neither this number of ammunition fragments nor the corresponding number of craters," he added.

Read also
Syrian air defenses intercept 70% of US cruise missiles

A mere thirty missiles would be more than enough for destroying the facilities the Air Forces of the US, UK and France chose as targets for last Saturday’s missile strike, Konashenkov added.

"One can see perfectly well from the satellite photos circulated by the Western media these are ordinary buildings on the surface," he said.

"I’d like to recall that the Tomahawk missile warhead is equivalent of 500 kg of the TNT depending on its type."

"That’s why, whatever the method of computation, a mere ten missiles would be enough to destroy each of the three facilities even with account of a three-fold margin," Gen Konashenkov pointed out.
Syria's air defense

As many as 112 surface-to-air missiles, including 25 Pansir missiles, were used by Syria’s air defense forces to repel the strike delivered by the United States, France and the United Kingdom, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman said.

"A total of 112 surface-to-air guided missiles were used to repel the strike," he said, adding that 23 out of 25 missiles fired from the Pansir-S1 system had hit their targets.

"Twenty-nine missile were fired from the Buk system, with 24 of them hitting targets. Eleven missiles were fire from the Osa system. Five of them hit the targets. Thirteen missiles were fired from the S-125 system, five hit the targets. Five missiles were fired from the Strela-10 system, three hit the targets, Twenty-one missiles were fired from the Kvadrat system, eleven hit the targets. Eight missiles were fired from the S-200 systems, none hit the targets," he said, adding that such poor performance of the S-200 system could be explained by the fact that it was meant to hit aircraft. Moreover, in his words, a missile fire from this system hit a fighter jet of one of the neighboring countries not long ago.

Read also
Expert highlights threat of new strikes against Syria

According to the ministry spokesman, facilities protected by air defense systems suffered practically no damages. "All of the four missiles fired at the Dumayr aerodrome were shot down; 18 missiles were fired at the Blei airfield, all were shot down; 12 missiles were fired at the Shairat aerodrome, all were shot down; two missiles were fired at the T-4 aerodrome, all were shot down; five of the nine missiles fired at the Mezze airfield were shot down; 13 out of the 16 missiles fired at the Homs aerodrome were shot down," he said.

However only five out of the 30 missiles and guided air bombs fired at research facilities at Barze and Djaramani were shot down by Syrian air defense systems.

On April 14, the United States, France and the United Kingdom delivered a massive strike on Syrian targets in bypassing of the United Nations Security Council. According to the Russian defense ministry, the missile strike was in the small hours on Saturday. The ministry reported that a total of 103 cruise and air-to-surface missiles had been fired, 71 of them were shot down by Syria’s air defense units. Three civilians were wounded. Neither of the missiles appeared in the zone of responsibility of Russian air defense systems in Tartus and Hmeymim. Russian missile defense systems were not used.

The United States, the UK and France said the strikes had been a response to an alleged chemical attack in Syria’s Douma.


More:
http://tass.com/defense/1000148
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Apr 16 12:20:51
"Twenty-nine missile were fired from the Buk system, with 24 of them hitting targets."

Any civilian 777s this time?

Lol@dishonorable russians.
jergul
large member
Mon Apr 16 12:23:01
rofl@subsonic missiles?
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Apr 16 12:29:27
The only proof russia can offer that there weapons work is the shooting down of a large, fat, slow airliner with no stealthing flying in a straight line at 30,000 feet. And they lied about that too. Do russians ever tell the truth?
jergul
large member
Mon Apr 16 12:37:51
I think the US claim that 70 missiles were fired at 3 buildings to be pretty ludicrous myself.

The Russian claim sort of matches what I would have expected.

Air Defenses work under optimal conditions (and conditions could not have been better saturday morning).

I expected airfields to be targetted. Part of degrading capability. See the strike last year for details on US reasoning for that.

Very few missiles survived entry into missile kill zones at airports. Most survived hitting targets without dedicated air defense assets.

Moral of story: Don't give air defenses optimal conditions.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Apr 16 12:47:54
Jergul trusting russian state sponsored media statements. Lol.
jergul
large member
Mon Apr 16 12:51:26
Sammy
The Russian claim matches what I would have expected.

rofl@subsonic missiles.

I have said that for years.

Anyways, don't give air defenses optimal conditions next time. Its not something you are forced to do.
jergul
large member
Mon Apr 16 12:55:40
The only way the US story could be true is if you assume trump was fixating on the number of missiles and the DoD really, really did not want to risk hitting Russians.

DoD: "Fuck it, we still have block III Tomahawks in some of the tubes, right? Just fire them all at that building so we can make the magic 100+ launch number the Prez wants".
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Apr 16 13:17:44
"The Russian claim matches what I would have expected. "

Exactly. Lol. When two perpetually wrong sources line up, the opposite of their claims is likely the true case.
jergul
large member
Mon Apr 16 13:32:20
Sammy
Now you are just being sad.

The transition from analogue to digital simply renders sub-sonic munitions obsolete in certain scenarios.

Pick your poison. Either the US did in fact fire 70 cruise missiles into 3 buildings, or firing at protected airports does not work too well when air defenses have optimal conditions.

70 cruise missiles into 3 building suggest something is really broken in your military (including its CoC).

I gave you the "Fuck it" scenario that has to be true if the US story is true.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Apr 16 17:40:55
According to international observers, russia has been lying nonstop, changing their position multiple times, issuing mutually exclusive statements, and blocking access to the latest chemical weapons site.

Havent been able to clean it up in time, eh?
jergul
large member
Mon Apr 16 17:48:29
Sammy
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

I frankly do not even get the issue. Syria is most certainly producing and storing chlorine.

Weaponizing it consists of putting chlorine into a barrel according to the western narrative.

Using it consists of rolling a barrel out of a helicopter door.

So what are you saying? A barrel factory has been bombed?
jergul
large member
Mon Apr 16 17:49:45
Clean up was funny. Given the material in question. Everything would obviously be very clean by definition if a chlorine store as bombed and the dust allowed to settle.
jergul
large member
Mon Apr 16 17:57:12
Anyway, the disconnect between what the US is saying and what Russia is saying is too large currently.

70 missiles into a 3 buildings beggars belief. I think that is the first question that needs clarification.

The "fuck it" scenario is the best I can come up with.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Apr 16 18:15:05
Lol a confused russian troll. Russia should buy better trolls.
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Mon Apr 16 19:31:08
Al-Masdar News‏Verified account @TheArabSource · 1h1 hour ago


 More

Israeli missiles target military base allegedly filled with Russian soldiers: unconfirmed https://aml.ink/mC6xA #Israel #Russia #Syria

swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Mon Apr 16 20:24:12

Amichai Stein‏Verified account @AmichaiStein1


Follow Follow @AmichaiStein1



 More

#BREAKING: Syria: 6 missiles targeted Shayrat #Damascus airbase and 3 were aimed at Dumair military airport outside Homs on Monday "were intercepted"; Pentagon: “There are no US or Coalition operations in that area"


http://twitter.com/AmichaiStein1/status/986039838343385088
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Mon Apr 16 20:39:41

Looks like someone else decided to join the fun.

jergul
large member
Tue Apr 17 02:28:00
HR
The fun of having all missiles targeting defended airbases shot down?

The only thing that alleged attack did was increase Russian claim credibility and decrease US claim credibility.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Tue Apr 17 02:31:48

No airbases were targeted.

jergul
large member
Tue Apr 17 02:50:54
HR
Or airbases where targeted and successfully defended.

Listen, your president has been tweeting since he took office. There are two problems with that. 1. The truth is not a factor. Not that Trump always lies, its just that the truth is not a consideration when he posts. 2. The "Mission Accomplished" tweet was made before the DoD gave its briefing. Making it very difficult to impossible for the DoD to admit it had targeted, but failed to hit, military airbases.

What we do know is that sending 70 missiles into 3 buildings in a matter of minutes is crazy. This is what the DoD is saying it did.

Your military has bigger problems than air defenses if cartering to Trump's need for volume makes the DoD do stupid crap like that.



Seb
Member
Tue Apr 17 03:03:46
Jergul has a point.

It seems highly unlikely that many missiles go into that many buildings unless the Pentagon was just trying to make the rubble bounce. A lot.

Either there was a number of missiles in mind - which would not be inconsistent with Trump who likes to measure things "twice as big as last time", or the rest were shot down.

That said they might have been testing air defences or effectiveness of means of disrupting them.

Clearly if so the results were not great.


Hot Rod
Revved Up
Tue Apr 17 04:37:48

Or maybe Trump and the others just wanted to show the world what can happen when an irresistible force meets a specific target.

Someone is still firing missiles at Syrian air bases. Maybe some of their missiles were shot down.


I will believe Trump, despite his penchant for exaggeration, before I believe a pack of nasty bad guys.

jergul
large member
Tue Apr 17 05:13:55
HR
How nice that you have found religious faith at your age!

The US could easily prove its claim by showing us footage of that "irresistable force" It would probably look quite neat with a few minutes of detonations every few seconds. poof poof...poof poof poof...poof poof poof poof.

Why are we not seeing that? The US is usually quite fond of showing video footage of strikes.
jergul
large member
Tue Apr 17 05:15:46
poof poof...poof poof poof...poof poof poof poof. poof poof...poof poof poof...poof poof poof poof. poof poof...poof poof poof...poof poof poof poof. poof poof...poof poof poof...poof poof poof poof. poof poof...poof poof poof...poof poof poof poof. poof poof...poof poof poof...poof poof poof poof. poof poof...poof poof poof...poof poof poof poof. poof poof...poof poof poof...poof poof poof poof.

One poof for each missile the US claimed hit one of those 3 buildings.

It seems rather...outlandish?
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Tue Apr 17 05:25:33

Tell you what. Next time you run down there with a camera and take the pictures. If you ask Trump real nice he might let you ride one of the missiles since the planes we use do not get close enough to the targets to film the

poof poof...poof poof poof...poof poof poof poof. poof poof...poof poof poof...poof poof poof poof. poof poof...poof poof poof...poof poof poof poof. poof poof...poof poof poof...poof poof poof poof. poof poof...poof poof poof...poof poof poof poof. poof poof...poof poof poof...poof poof poof poof. poof poof...poof poof poof...poof poof poof poof. poof poof...poof poof poof...poof poof poof poof.

jergul
large member
Tue Apr 17 05:31:43
HR
Wow. Your claim is that the US has no surveilance assets over Syria?

The only thing you are doing now is proving a person has to be really, really stupid to take US claims at face value.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Tue Apr 17 05:50:13

Of course, we have surveillance satellites, but I would much rather see you riding one of those missiles.

Not sure why they didn't use them. Why don't you write The President and ask him?

Russia should have some video too. Where is it?

jergul
large member
Tue Apr 17 06:01:58
HR
Footage of a missile hitting a missile could be from anywhere. It would not prove anything. Case in point: video footage of missiles hitting missiles are available on the internet.

If I found one, would you accept that it shows a missile hitting a missile, and that debunks the US claim that none of the missiles fired were shot down?

Or would you say: "that could be anything"?

jergul
large member
Tue Apr 17 06:02:56
But like I said. I am glad you found a belief system. Saint Trump is prone to exageration like you said, but you believe him.
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Tue Apr 17 06:46:56
Lord West

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BROMV0nJvyE
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Apr 17 07:09:30
"Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight"
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Tue Apr 17 07:21:00

He is a much better belief system than yours.

He wants the world to be a better place while your system wants to tear down freedom and replace it with global socialism.


Let me suggest a book for you that you will enjoy.

'DO IT!: Scenarios of the Revolution by Jerry Rubin.' Rubin was one of the Chicago Seven.

It's a small book that you can probably read in an hour or two, but it is interesting and I think you will like it. That is just my impression of the book. It's been over 30 years since I read it so I have forgotten the details.

Enjoy.

swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Tue Apr 17 08:40:59
Max Abrahms‏Verified account @MaxAbrahms · 1h1 hour ago

 More

Syrian state media on Tuesday retracted reports of an overnight missile attack on the central province of Homs, saying a "false alarm" had activated its air defences.

murder
Member
Tue Apr 17 08:41:48

It probably would have been useful to point out earlier that chlorine gas is NOT included in the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Seb
Member
Tue Apr 17 09:23:58
Murder:

Actually it is.

https://www.opcw.org/about-chemical-weapons/what-is-a-chemical-weapon/
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Apr 17 10:09:01

"Syrian state media on Tuesday retracted reports of an overnight missile attack on the central province of Homs, saying a "false alarm" had activated its air defences. "

Lol jerguls vaunted soviet air defense. Shooting at birds.
jergul
large member
Tue Apr 17 10:28:49
Sammy
You mean something with a similar radar cross section as a stealth aircraft?

Yah, it is consievable that the air defenses locked on to that.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Tue Apr 17 11:02:15

jergul, did you see my last post?

swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Tue Apr 17 11:26:21
Israel tries to dissociate itself from claim of responsibility for Syria raid

Hours after NYTimes' Tom Friedman quotes Israeli official acknowledging attack on 'Iranian targets' last week, columnist updates article with IDF objection

http://www...responsibility-for-syria-raid/
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Apr 17 12:11:10
"Seb
Member Tue Apr 17 09:23:58
Murder:

Actually it is."

Chlorine isn't listed as a chemical weapon. The link isn't a guiding document and just meant to be informative and in general.

Here are the listed chemicals.

http://www...on/annexes/annex-on-chemicals/
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Apr 17 12:17:44
Chlorine is tricky. It is widely available and used. Together with the fact that the Government was already crushing the rebels. Highly doubtful.
Seb
Member
Tue Apr 17 13:09:58
Nim:

That just means it's exempt from verification measures (which is fine as it's so widely used legitimately). It's still a chemical weapon if it is used as a weapon and all that entails.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Apr 17 13:19:36
Sure, it makes it more difficult to prove in situations like this. Such a a widely used chemical, a fundamental element, pure, unlike Sarin, tabun etc. It is sorta like a hammer, it is perfectly legal to have and use one, until you bash someones head in with it. A banned substance on the other hand...
Forwyn
Member
Tue Apr 17 13:43:21
i.e. bombing a chlorine production facility could reduce the availability of safe drinking water in a warzone. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
murder
Member
Tue Apr 17 13:51:28

"Actually it is."

Seb: November it's not. And you're smart enough to know that isn't the document.

murder
Member
Tue Apr 17 13:55:22

"i.e. bombing a chlorine production facility could reduce the availability of safe drinking water in a warzone"

All in the name of protecting innocent civilians
jergul
large member
Tue Apr 17 14:05:36
It is a chemical weapon if used as a chemical weapon or weaponized in attendant munitions.

It is not a chemical weapon if merely produced and stored. A reasonable amount of chlorine for Syria to produce and store would measure in the 100ds of thousand tons per year.
jergul
large member
Tue Apr 17 14:06:06
This according to the treaty.
jergul
large member
Tue Apr 17 14:09:18
This means that only prepared munitions, or excessive stockpiles (which Syria certainly does not have given the high level of legitimate production and storage everywhere on the planet) are chemical weapons.

Nimi's example was a good one. Simply because a hammer was used, does not mean hammers are now forbidden in general.
murder
Member
Tue Apr 17 14:10:07

"November it's not."

Somehow "no" became "November".

swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Tue Apr 17 14:10:46
well it ain't November!
Seb
Member
Tue Apr 17 17:38:19
Murder:

You prefer a link to the convention itself? Ok here's the article.


https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/articles/article-ii-definitions-and-criteria/


For the purposes of this Convention:
1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:
(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;
(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;
(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b).
2. "Toxic Chemical" means:
Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.
(For the purpose of implementing this Convention, toxic chemicals which have been identified for the application of verification measures are listed in Schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals.)

The annex on chemicals contains the schedules chemicals that are subject to verrification. I.e. notification, disclosure, disposal etc. Chlorine isn't on that list as it has legitimate uses.


But a chlorine barrel bomb dropped from a helicopter is still a chemical weapon under the convention.
Seb
Member
Tue Apr 17 17:40:13
Jergul:

I don't think anyone is saying the possession of chlorine is dodgy.

Having stockpiles at air bases starts to raise questions. Dropping barrels of it with an explosive charge off the back of a helicopter is clearly a no no.
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Tue Apr 17 18:19:15
lol
jergul
large member
Tue Apr 17 18:31:34
Seb
An inoperative Air Defense base, not airbase.

The whole narrative of degrading Syria's ability to use chlorine and barrels is a bit ludicrous. Syria has in pratical terms an infinite supply of both.

I trust you have caught that there are serious doubts about Syria using chemical weapons.
jergul
large member
Thu Apr 19 04:39:12
DAMASCUS, April 19. /TASS/. Two cruise missiles found unexploded by the Syrian military after the US missile strike on April 14 have been handed over to Russia, a source in the Syrian defense ministry told TASS on Thursday.



"Two cruise missiles that did not detonate during the US missile strike on Syria overnight to April 14 were found by the Syrian military. Both are in rather good condition. These missiles were handed over to Russian officer the day before yesterday (April 17)," the source said, adding that both "were sent to Russia by plane yesterday (April 18)."

TASS has no official confirmation of this information from the Russian defense ministry.

US President Donald Trump wrote on Twitter on April 11 that Russia should get ready for a missile attack on Syria, claiming the missiles will be "nice and new and smart".

On April 14, the United States, France and the United Kingdom delivered a massive strike on Syrian targets in bypassing of the United Nations Security Council. According to the Russian defense ministry, the missile strike was in the small hours on Saturday. The ministry reported that a total of 103 cruise and air-to-surface missiles had been fired, 71 of them were shot down by Syria’s air defense units. Three civilians were wounded. Neither of the missiles appeared in the zone of responsibility of Russian air defense systems in Tartus and Hmeymim. Russian missile defense systems were not used.


More:
http://tass.com/world/1000645
Seb
Member
Thu Apr 19 06:10:43
jergul:

I think the point is what was targeted was things more associated with nerve agents.

I certainly think there is a narrative about serious doubts about use of chemical weapons. I don't share that assessment. There is overwhelming evidence of them using chemical weapons - and scenarios about rebels stockpiling chemicals at locations likely to be bombed so that it gasses civillians is laughable from a practical consideration of:
1. What we would observe if that were true
2. What we would not observe if that were true





jergul
large member
Thu Apr 19 08:17:54
Seb
Turns out actors in the video have come forward and explained why they took part in the staged event.

Also, there is no need to stage chlorine gas attacks. Any attack in an urban area will leave residual chlorine traces from household articles for example, just as any attack will cause respitory issues from dust.

But feel free to believe any narrative you like.
Seb
Member
Thu Apr 19 18:29:33
jergul:

Yes, yes, it's all made up. The regime doesn't use chemical weapons for terror purposes.

Anything is possible and nothing is true...
jergul
large member
Thu Apr 19 19:08:48
Seb
I am not the one who threw out the rulebook and rendered anything possible and nothing true without independent verification Seb.

It seems less and less likely the regime made a chemical attack in Douma.

Remembering if you will that the onus is on France-UK-US.

Who in any event have not justified the attack they made on a UN member state through the mechanisms that exist for that.

People hung in Nurenburg for stuff like that.
jergul
large member
Fri Apr 20 02:22:37
A video released by the Iraqi airforce showing it destroy a multistory building with 76:3 = 25.3 missiles:

http://www...ia-with-dead-on-target-strike/

Or maybe it was just one guided general purpose bomb. Hard to tell.
Seb
Member
Fri Apr 20 03:15:51
Jergul:

Setting up such stark lines is absurd. The only independent verification is via UN where Russia can veto t&CS.

The whole r2p came about because Russia vetoes actual enforcement of international law.

Appoint you overlook.

Stop presenting your choice of whom to place faith in as objectivity.
Seb
Member
Fri Apr 20 03:17:02
They hung people for gassing children too. And murdering and torturing prisoners. Something you argue is less important than Asssad's sovereignty.
jergul
large member
Fri Apr 20 04:11:23
Seb
Noted that you find the UN-Charter and UN system to be absurd.

No wonder you think "Anything is possible and nothing is true".

There is no real point discussing international matters with you. We do not share a common framework of understanding.



jergul
large member
Fri Apr 20 04:24:51
The UK et al. has not invoked d2p in the appropriate UN channels incidentally. There is a procedure to be followed as stipulated by the treaty.

An unjustified attack is an unjust and illegal attack.

All UN treaties hinge on following the charter. There is no NPT or Chemical warfare treaty outside of that framework.
Seb
Member
Fri Apr 20 04:46:01
jergul:

What is absurd is you think that the we have a body and a charter that sets out rights, but that this should never, ever be enforced.

jergul
large member
Fri Apr 20 06:03:51
I think it absurd that you cannot accept that actions have conscequences.

D2p i Libya was covered by a UNSC resolution. So would be an example of enforcement.

The resolution was systematically abused, so of course it will take time and effort to rebuild trust to a point where UNSC members will trust that the wording of resolutions will be adhered to.

I warned you about this at the time.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share