Most rockets in Western attacks on Syria were intercepted - Russia

[GroveHillWanderer]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Allow me to doubt your expertise in the field of international law. I believe what you cite as "cornerstone" is not, actually, an integral part of most such legislation. As far as I recall, this supposed "cornerstone" does not even apply on some national level legal systems. No so much "objections" when it comes to violations of "international law" by Russia and Syria, eh?

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'International Law.' I'm not aware that there's a clear definition of what 'International Law' is.

 

However, while it's true that a presumption of innocence is not a part of all national legal systems, it is an international human right according to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is also a tenet upheld by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'International Law.' I'm not aware that there's a clear definition of what 'International Law' is.

 

However, while it's true that a presumption of innocence is not a part of all national legal systems, it is an international human right according to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is also a tenet upheld by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

 

Does the presumption of innocence apply to countries/governments or actions taken by? I'd suggest it is more closely associated with personal cases and charges.

[Jingjock]

22 hours ago, StreetCowboy said:

is bombing people really the best form of enlightenment and education?  Is that why the US has so many school shootings?

Perhaps you should try getting gassed with these weapons, then you may change your tune

[BobBKK]

11 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Don't see you (and others airing similar positions) going on about such things as the "UN" or "international law" with regard to transgressions carried out by Assad and his supporters (including Russia) during the Syrian Civil War. In fact, don't recall all  that much affront and outrage from your guys over Russia vetoing numerous UNSC resolution proposals dealing with the Syrian Civil War.

Whether we like it or not the UNSC has RULES and, last time I looked, Russia abides by those RULES. I don't disagree that that these should not be reviewed but it is what it is.

 

The USA took very limited action avoiding, wisely, hitting Russian installations. I am no fan of Assad but there is NO alternative and we don't need another debacle similar as after Saddam do we?

 

Russia has won the war against ISIS in Syria whilst the USA slept. The carnage in Syria has to stop but the rebel ISIS fighters keep the killing going or do you think they are some sort of freedom fighters? The fighting stops when ISIS is wiped out.

[GroveHillWanderer]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Does the presumption of innocence apply to countries/governments or actions taken by? I'd suggest it is more closely associated with personal cases and charges.

It's a general principle, it merely holds that the onus of proof is on the accuser rather than the accused. So it really depends on who is involved. Whether the accused is an individual or an entity such as a company, a state or a group of some kind, I would say the basic principle applies regardless.

[BobBKK]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Allow me to doubt your expertise in the field of international law. I believe what you cite as "cornerstone" is not, actually, an integral part of most such legislation. As far as I recall, this supposed "cornerstone" does not even apply on some national level legal systems. No so much "objections" when it comes to violations of "international law" by Russia and Syria, eh?

United Nations Charter +++  or you push the vile 'Guilty until proven otherwise"?  that is the tool of dictatorships my friend

[BobBKK]

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Does the presumption of innocence apply to countries/governments or actions taken by? I'd suggest it is more closely associated with personal cases and charges.

Allow me to doubt your expertise and refer you to Google to undertake some basic research.

The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latinexpression ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Beats56]

18 hours ago, chrisinth said:

Then you obviously never saw CNN presentation during Desert Storm. That went further than propaganda though, as they were transmitting live to strikes taking off for missions against Iraqi forces being watched live in Baghdad as well as in the western world. That BS is what made CNN.

 

Or the embedded media for the second one going into Iraq. That is how propaganda backfires; underestimating the enemy thinking the war is over after mass troop movements finish, not believing urban & guerrilla warfare would follow.

 

Oh believe me saw it and couldn't watch CNN anymore. Switched to another network.

 

[Morch]

21 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Whether we like it or not the UNSC has RULES and, last time I looked, Russia abides by those RULES. I don't disagree that that these should not be reviewed but it is what it is.

 

The USA took very limited action avoiding, wisely, hitting Russian installations. I am no fan of Assad but there is NO alternative and we don't need another debacle similar as after Saddam do we?

 

Russia has won the war against ISIS in Syria whilst the USA slept. The carnage in Syria has to stop but the rebel ISIS fighters keep the killing going or do you think they are some sort of freedom fighters? The fighting stops when ISIS is wiped out.

 

What UNSC "rules" are you on about? Russia blocked numerous resolution proposals related to the Syrian Civil War. Was this within Russia's rights? Sure. Do you and others going on about the US have much criticism of that practice? No. And, of course, there was nothing mentioned about "reviewing" said "rules" - that's something you added to the discussion, the "don't disagree" bit a faux construct.

 

The US, UK and France took limited action. There was no chance nor aim it would lead to Assad being deposed. It does not bear a resemblance to how things unfolded in Iraq.

 

Russia did not win "the war against ISIS in Syria while the USA slept". A significant part, if not most of the fighting against ISIS was carried out by the USA. Russia concentrated its efforts on other Islamic outfits, and Assad's opposition. The carnage in Syria is, to a large extent, a product of Assad's and Russia's forces actions. The rebels in question weren't ISIS, and they were not "wiped out", but relocated to northern Syria. Obviously there was nothing said about "freedom fighters" - try harder.

[Morch]

29 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

It's a general principle, it merely holds that the onus of proof is on the accuser rather than the accused. So it really depends on who is involved. Whether the accused is an individual or an entity such as a company, a state or a group of some kind, I would say the basic principle applies regardless.

 

As said, I seriously doubt you're on the money here, even though it would seem an "obvious" conclusion.

[Morch]

30 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

United Nations Charter +++  or you push the vile 'Guilty until proven otherwise"?  that is the tool of dictatorships my friend

 

I am not your friend. Saying "United Nations Charter" without a clear reference is meaningless. And fancy going on about dictatorships while supporting Russia and Syria.

[Morch]

30 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Allow me to doubt your expertise and refer you to Google to undertake some basic research.

The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latinexpression ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

None of this directly supports the notion that it applies to governments or countries as a whole. Most of the references included pertain or specify personal cases and rights.

[car720]

16 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Whereas being burned alive or riddled with shrapnel should be rated PG-13?

If you're not willing to do what needs to be done, then do nothing.

So gassing children needs to be done?

I think you should read the post that I was responding to.

[Kieran00001]

21 hours ago, BobBKK said:

 

Bombs before proof seems to be the way these days. Whatever happened to the UN?  and the rule of International LAW.

 

The UN inspectors were to start their investigation yesterday, they are there and say they will carry on as planned despite the obvious set back.

[Grouse]

34 minutes ago, Morch said:

A significant part, if not most of the fighting against ISIS was carried out by the USA.

How about "the Kurds". Are you planning to airbrush them away? Is that why you use italics and inverted commas? Check Kurdish v American casualties.

 

For the record, Kurds lost 1,500 troops killed and 10,000 injured getting ISIS out of Iraq

 

Russia let Turkey have a free hand in Northern Syria and the USA have left their allies to twist in the wind. Poor Kurds ?.

Edited April 15, 2018 by Grouse

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, Grouse said:

How about "the Kurds". Are you planning to airbrush them away? Is that why you use italics and inverted commas? Check Kurdish v American casualties.

 

"Is that why you use italics and inverted commas?"

 

Explained in another post. A specific reply to a notion raised regarding Kurdish unity and lumping groups.

 

"How about "the Kurds". Are you planning to airbrush them away?"

 

No "airbrushing", it was a reply to a post making an incorrect comment about US vs. Russian contribution to the fight against ISIS. The Kurds, by the way, are largely aligned with the US when it comes to this fight.

Edited April 15, 2018 by Morch

[geriatrickid]

4 hours ago, BobBKK said:

 

The other way round. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove Assad did this. Innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone of international law.

No it is not. If you wish to cite international law then I draw your attention to  the most basic of civil practices;that of personal injury. We see it on display in Thailand and it is a reality in the arab world. You have made the false assumption that the obligation is upon the victims of the gas attack to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt. That's not how it works with these types of cases. 

 

There are injured people. It has been established by multiple sources including the World Health Organization, a UN agency that the deceased and injured were exposed to toxic gas. Are you denying that there was no gas attack? 

 

As has been stated previously, multiple Syrian military helicopters were observed over Douma on April 7, with witnesses specifically reporting an Mi-8 helicopter, known to have taken off from the Assad regime’s nearby Dumayr airfield, circling over Douma during the attack. Numerous eyewitnesses have corroborated that barrel bombs were dropped from these helicopters, a tactic used to target civilians indiscriminately throughout the war. Photos of barrel bombs dropped in Douma closely match those used previously by the regime. 

 

You and the other Assad supporters have not provided any evidence to show that  the Assad regime did not once again gas its people. Why do you persist in supporting  these despicable acts of  cruelty? Your double standard and hypocrisy is frightening. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Grouse]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

"Is that why you use italics and inverted commas?"

 

Explained in another post. A specific reply to a notion raised regarding Kurdish unity and lumping groups.

 

"How about "the Kurds". Are you planning to airbrush them away?"

 

No "airbrushing", it was a reply to a post making an incorrect comment about US vs. Russian contribution to the fight against ISIS. The Kurds, by the way, are largely aligned with the US when it comes to this fight.

And who's Blood was shed?

 

The Americans used Kurdish boots and then walked off. That, yet again, is why the USA is no longer trusted

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

yes the kurdish militias fought a lot and the turkish army applied chemicals in afrin . the turks want to commit a second genocide on kurds in syrian after their first genocide on 2 million armenian christians. under assad christians, jews lived in harmony in syria. assad has not had chemical agents applied, thereto usa, uk, france did not receive any mandate to bomb syria.

 

wbr

roobaa01

 

There is no evidence Turkey used chemical weapons in Afrin.

As for your nonsense about Jews in Syria - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Syria#21st_century

Assad's forces did posses and use chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War,

Edited April 15, 2018 by Morch

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, Grouse said:

And who's Blood was shed?

 

The Americans used Kurdish boots and then walked off. That, yet again, is why the USA is no longer trusted

 

You're moving the goal posts, again. Kindly read back and follow the discussion. It ain't about what you're on.

[metisdead]

A conspiracy post has been removed.

[observer90210]

I would not feel all that safe in the streets of US, French or UK metros,  as war attracts war and obviously all the nut cases or fanatic fundamentalists will probably counter attack.

 

In this picture, one can only see mad men in the West attacking other mad men in the East....

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, observer90210 said:

I would not feel all that safe in the streets of US, French or UK metros,  as war attracts war and obviously all the nut cases or fanatic fundamentalists will probably counter attack.

 

In this picture, one can only see mad men in the West attacking other mad men in the East....

 

Were there any such retaliation attacks following the previous attack? Why would the "fanatic fundamentalists" counter attack when Assad's forces are being targeted?

[observer90210]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Were there any such retaliation attacks following the previous attack? Why would the "fanatic fundamentalists" counter attack when Assad's forces are being targeted?

I guess when human madness is involved, anything can be expected anywhere....and hopefully I am wrong...but I feel safer in Thailand no matter what people may say.

[GroveHillWanderer]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

As said, I seriously doubt you're on the money here, even though it would seem an "obvious" conclusion.

I don't believe you've said any such thing to me previously (maybe you're confusing me with someone else). But in any event, how and why does the principle of presumed innocence not apply here, in your opinion?

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

I don't believe you've said any such thing to me previously (maybe you're confusing me with someone else). But in any event, how and why does the principle of presumed innocence not apply here, in your opinion?

 

The same way most schoolyard concepts of justice do not really apply in international relations. International affairs (including laws) seem to be of a different quality then everyday, immediate experience leads to believe. Given that there is no effective World Government, and the UNSC veto thing essentially guaranteeing certain parties immunity, concluding that same rules apply is not necessarily correct.

[The manic]

23 hours ago, BobBKK said:

And Vice Versa and we will never know. Both sides Lie, Lie and Lie again.  Ordinary citizens are, and will be, clueless.  Personally I think it's a set-up of collusion, obfuscation and skulduggery.

 

Every time Syria begins to 'win' (as it certainly has) something 'happens' to warrant bombing. WHY would Assad do this?  what's to be gained?  and why is this in the USA's, France or UK's interest?  ignore the 500,000 killed by conventional weapons but go all-out bombing over 75 alleged chemical deaths?

It's not the quantity of deaths but their manner. After WW1 the civilised world agreed not to use chemical weapons.  The civilised does not include Arab dictatorships or Stalinist thug states. The same issues arise over nuclear weapons.

[Sir Dude]

I think the Russians got a cold hard lesson on this one. Bet they didn't get any of the missiles and the damage is massive. They have done the token denial stuff which had to be done...but no bellicose statements and bravado that was coming out before the strikes. 

[metisdead]

A number of posts containing unverified information have been removed as well as the replies. 

[Grouse]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

"Is that why you use italics and inverted commas?"

 

Explained in another post. A specific reply to a notion raised regarding Kurdish unity and lumping groups.

 

"How about "the Kurds". Are you planning to airbrush them away?"

 

No "airbrushing", it was a reply to a post making an incorrect comment about US vs. Russian contribution to the fight against ISIS. The Kurds, by the way, are largely aligned with the US when it comes to this fight.

Ponder this

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29702440

 

I guess the Kurds are untermensch?

Edited April 15, 2018 by Grouse