Most rockets in Western attacks on Syria were intercepted - Russia

[evadgib]

Details of the strike:

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=nzDE_1523757158

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Details of the strike:

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=nzDE_1523757158

 

"...we employed seventy six missiles. Fifty seven of these were Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles, and nineteen were Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missiles, or JASSMS."

 

[Naam]

Quote

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?

[BobBKK]

19 hours ago, Morch said:

 

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.

You really scrape the bottom of the barrel.

 

International law and UNSC is clear on this matter but you will argue, obfuscate and deflect simply to heighten your ego rather than add to a mature debate.

[BobBKK]

19 hours ago, Morch said:

 

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.

Ok you are not my friend nor anyone's it appears...  this won'take any difference to your ego but here is the section you ask for :

 

 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.".

[geriatrickid]

53 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Ok you are not my friend nor anyone's it appears...  this won'take any difference to your ego but here is the section you ask for :

 

 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.".

 

f you want to lecture us on the law, then it would be appropriate that you actually knew what you were talking about, because you are wrong. One does not  need  a court order or a conviction to stop a violent crime in progress.  The gassing of non combatants with sarin and chlorine gas is a  horrific act.  No one is obliged to obtain "permission" to stop it.

 

This isn't a common "penal offence" and the administration of proceedings in a case such as this goes is well past the stage of  "the presumption of innocence".

You conveniently  ignore, or perhaps you are just ignorant of the joint investigation by the UN and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons that  found enough evidence in three prior chlorine gas attacks in 2014 and 2015 to prove that the Syrian government was responsible. This finding was not contested.  The UN Security Council Unanimously Adopted Resolution 2235 (2015), Establishing Mechanism to Identify Perpetrators Using Chemical Weapons in Syria The Security Council established  the Joint Investigative Mechanism of the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which would identify “to the greatest extent feasible” individuals, entities, groups or Governments perpetrating, organizing, sponsoring or otherwise involved in the use of chemicals as weapons in Syria.  The investigation identified the leadership of the Syrian military and Assad as responsible parties. Syria was already sanctioned. 

 

The Syrian state  initiated the mass killings through the use of poison gas. The state does not have benefit of the protections you claim because it was subject to conditions. International Inspectors  have been blocked from  verifying  remaining stockpiles and manufacturing facilities. 

 

Your attempt to defend the mass murderer Assad by the inappropriate use the UN charter of human rights is like saying Himmler was innocent of mass murder because he was not convicted, Pol Pot was just misunderstood, and that King Leopold and his Belgian thieves did not murder  millions in the Congo because he was not charged. 

 

You are  morally and legally wrong and should be ashamed of your defense of a brutal state that is using poison gas.  You have the Corbyn disease.

 

[BobBKK]

9 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

 

f you want to lecture us on the law, then it would be appropriate that you actually knew what you were talking about, because you are wrong. One does not  need  a court order or a conviction to stop a violent crime in progress.  The gassing of non combatants with sarin and chlorine gas is a  horrific act.  No one is obliged to obtain "permission" to stop it.

 

This isn't a common "penal offence" and the administration of proceedings in a case such as this goes is well past the stage of  "the presumption of innocence".

You conveniently  ignore, or perhaps you are just ignorant of the joint investigation by the UN and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons that  found enough evidence in three prior chlorine gas attacks in 2014 and 2015 to prove that the Syrian government was responsible. This finding was not contested.  The UN Security Council Unanimously Adopted Resolution 2235 (2015), Establishing Mechanism to Identify Perpetrators Using Chemical Weapons in Syria The Security Council established  the Joint Investigative Mechanism of the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which would identify “to the greatest extent feasible” individuals, entities, groups or Governments perpetrating, organizing, sponsoring or otherwise involved in the use of chemicals as weapons in Syria.  The investigation identified the leadership of the Syrian military and Assad as responsible parties. Syria was already sanctioned. 

 

The Syrian state  initiated the mass killings through the use of poison gas. The state does not have benefit of the protections you claim because it was subject to conditions. International Inspectors  have been blocked from  verifying  remaining stockpiles and manufacturing facilities. 

 

Your attempt to defend the mass murderer Assad by the inappropriate use the UN charter of human rights is like saying Himmler was innocent of mass murder because he was not convicted, Pol Pot was just misunderstood, and that King Leopold and his Belgian thieves did not murder  millions in the Congo because he was not charged. 

 

You are  morally and legally wrong and should be ashamed of your defense of a brutal state that is using poison gas.  You have the Corbyn disease.

 

Your rant misses the point. By who?

[ravip]

On ‎14‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 11:31 PM, Morch said:

 

Would posters bashing the UN be more happy if it had an army under its direct command, and the authority to use it?

No.

But would be very happy if the UN is unbiased and stop wasting donors funds meant for the poor and do the job they are supposed to do.

Edited April 16, 2018 by ravip

[Morch]

3 hours ago, ravip said:

No.

But would be very happy if the UN is unbiased and stop wasting donors funds meant for the poor and do the job they are supposed to do.

 

Great, how does this relate to the topic, though?

[Morch]

6 hours ago, BobBKK said:

You really scrape the bottom of the barrel.

 

International law and UNSC is clear on this matter but you will argue, obfuscate and deflect simply to heighten your ego rather than add to a mature debate.

 

No, it isn't clear. You're saying that it's clear, and that doesn't make it so.

 

6 hours ago, BobBKK said:

Ok you are not my friend nor anyone's it appears...  this won'take any difference to your ego but here is the section you ask for :

 

 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.".

 

You obviously don't get it. What you posted refers to human rights. It specifically refers to individual rights of persons. There is nothing in this which implies a direct application to Governments and countries as a whole.

 

Work on your petty insults, as well as on your lacking comprehension skills.

[BobBKK]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No, it isn't clear. You're saying that it's clear, and that doesn't make it so.

 

 

You obviously don't get it. What you posted refers to human rights. It specifically refers to individual rights of persons. There is nothing in this which implies a direct application to Governments and countries as a whole.

 

Work on your petty insults, as well as on your lacking comprehension skills.

Ergo you conversely support 'guilty until proven innocent'... well done and I would suggest you leave out the insults friend

[Morch]

55 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Ergo you conversely support 'guilty until proven innocent'... well done and I would suggest you leave out the insults friend

 

Ergo how? I didn't "support" any such thing. Not your friend, and if you're not interested in insults, don't go there.

[BobBKK]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Ergo how? I didn't "support" any such thing. Not your friend, and if you're not interested in insults, don't go there.

I suggest we stop this ping pong as you embarrass yourself.

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

I suggest we stop this ping pong as you embarrass yourself.

[stevenl]

14 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

I suggest we stop this ping pong as you embarrass yourself.

I often disagree with Morch, but he is correct here.

 

As are you: better stop this, you're embarrassing yourself.

[geriatrickid]

On 4/16/2018 at 3:08 PM, BobBKK said:

Ergo you conversely support 'guilty until proven innocent'... well done and I would suggest you leave out the insults friend

Why are you unable to accept that;

1. A UN Security Council sanction was already in place due to the  proven  gas use in 2014. 

2. The  UN Charter of Rights snippet you reference does not apply here because this is a state action.

 

Here's the part you ignore; Russia has had control of the  area where the gas was used. It has refused to allow the entry of neutral UN accredited investigators. 

The investigators arrived within a day of the gas use, but have been waiting  for a week to  enter the area. meanwhile the neighborhood is swarming with Russians and Syrians doing their best to  remove and to conceal evidence.

 

 

 

Edited April 17, 2018 by Scott

[Naam]

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-gas-douma-robert-fisk-ghouta-damascus-a8307726.html

[SheungWan]

On 4/15/2018 at 4:13 PM, The manic said:

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.

It is not stated what agreement you are referring to.

[The manic]

6 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

It is not stated what agreement you are referring to.

The horrors of the troops,on all sides, of all ranks let to a groundswell of opinion that led led to later treaties. I met people who had been exposed to WW1 chemical attacks. The experiences were so bad they 'would not wish it on their own worst enemy'.  What began as an informal agreement was later ratified just as with nuclear weapons. There were other reasons too: the wind. If you are really interested in the signatories to to the non proliferation of Bio/nerve/chemical agents then you have Google at your disposal. The British and Germans ceased using these types of weapons after WW1. They were so horrific that they were not seen for decades until the muslim Dictator Sadam Hussein and his partener in hell 'Chemical Ali' used them against Kurdish Iraqis. They also used human shields of local women and children tied up with barbed wires..strapped to tanks . These are the memories of my life..You learn your own history lessons now.. I have pointed you in the right direction.  I do not mean to be rude but you remind me of the Chinese people I know who do not know about the 10,000 people murdered in Tiananmen square..Just cos I know stuff don't mean I am obliged to source all my knowledge...This is not my PhD dissertation...I suggest you develop and pursue your own intellectual curiosity. But don't if you don't care too. Ignorance is bliss. Cheers

[Odysseus123]

2 hours ago, The manic said:

The horrors of the troops,on all sides, of all ranks let to a groundswell of opinion that led led to later treaties. I met people who had been exposed to WW1 chemical attacks. The experiences were so bad they 'would not wish it on their own worst enemy'.  What began as an informal agreement was later ratified just as with nuclear weapons. There were other reasons too: the wind. If you are really interested in the signatories to to the non proliferation of Bio/nerve/chemical agents then you have Google at your disposal. The British and Germans ceased using these types of weapons after WW1. They were so horrific that they were not seen for decades until the muslim Dictator Sadam Hussein and his partener in hell 'Chemical Ali' used them against Kurdish Iraqis. They also used human shields of local women and children tied up with barbed wires..strapped to tanks . These are the memories of my life..You learn your own history lessons now.. I have pointed you in the right direction.  I do not mean to be rude but you remind me of the Chinese people I know who do not know about the 10,000 people murdered in Tiananmen square..Just cos I know stuff don't mean I am obliged to source all my knowledge...This is not my PhD dissertation...I suggest you develop and pursue your own intellectual curiosity. But don't if you don't care too. Ignorance is bliss. Cheers

Actually Winston Churchill advocated the use of poison gas (he was Colonial Secretary at the time) against the Iraqi's in 1921-22.

 

He was disuadded from this because it was such a poor weapons system.

 

The UK took to bombing the Iraqi "rebels" in the first sustained indiscriminate air campaign in history-it was regarded as the cheapest option,altho' the British had already tried it (just a test dose) in Somaliland and Afghanistan

 

It is about this campaign,conducted with monumental insouciance that General Sir Henry Wilson remarked.." Appearing from God Knows where,dropping their bombs on God knows what,and going off again God knows where."

 

Nothing much has changed.

 

At least the British PM (David Lloyd George) had the good grace to say it was all about the OIL.

Edited April 17, 2018 by Odysseus123

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Naam said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-gas-douma-robert-fisk-ghouta-damascus-a8307726.html

 

Yes...and?

 

Other than the usual Fisk mumbo jumbo, he doesn't actually provide anything of substance there. Fisk is not quite an objective, neutral commentator when it comes to the Syrian Civil War.

[SheungWan]

6 hours ago, The manic said:

The horrors of the troops,on all sides, of all ranks let to a groundswell of opinion that led led to later treaties. I met people who had been exposed to WW1 chemical attacks. The experiences were so bad they 'would not wish it on their own worst enemy'.  What began as an informal agreement was later ratified just as with nuclear weapons. There were other reasons too: the wind. If you are really interested in the signatories to to the non proliferation of Bio/nerve/chemical agents then you have Google at your disposal. The British and Germans ceased using these types of weapons after WW1. They were so horrific that they were not seen for decades until the muslim Dictator Sadam Hussein and his partener in hell 'Chemical Ali' used them against Kurdish Iraqis. They also used human shields of local women and children tied up with barbed wires..strapped to tanks . These are the memories of my life..You learn your own history lessons now.. I have pointed you in the right direction.  I do not mean to be rude but you remind me of the Chinese people I know who do not know about the 10,000 people murdered in Tiananmen square..Just cos I know stuff don't mean I am obliged to source all my knowledge...This is not my PhD dissertation...I suggest you develop and pursue your own intellectual curiosity. But don't if you don't care too. Ignorance is bliss. Cheers

So after all that meandering I guess you do not have any post-WW1 ratified treaties to refer to.

Edited April 18, 2018 by SheungWan

[lannarebirth]

3 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

So after all that meandering I guess you do not have any ratified treaties to refer to.

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cwcglance

[SheungWan]

8 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

So after all that meandering I guess you do not have any post-WW1 ratified treaties to refer to.

 

4 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cwcglance

That does not answer my question at all. He said that agreements were made soon after WW1, including specified types of state which did not sign. You have just provided some latter day info. I was questioning his historical statements which by the way are made up assumptions of what happened but actually didn't.

[lannarebirth]

6 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

That does not answer my question at all. He said that agreements were made soon after WW1, including specified types of state which did not sign. You have just provided some latter day info. I was questioning his historical statements which by the way are made up assumptions of what happened but actually didn't.

 

If you read this, both you and him will know what did or did not happen.

 

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

[Naam]

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Yes...and?

 

Other than the usual Fisk mumbo jumbo, he doesn't actually provide anything of substance there. Fisk is not quite an objective, neutral commentator when it comes to the Syrian Civil War.

i beg to differ. for me it was clear from the beginning that the 'chemical' attack was staged. when a crime is committed the first question asked (since the Roman Empire) is "cui bono?" and the answer to that question is not "Assad"!

 

by the way... reading all the raving and ranting in this thread is quite but it provides an insight what the individual posters think

[stevenl]

It has been, reliably, reported, that the US tested new cruise missiles. That gives credence to the belief that the US was waiting for something like this, or maybe even worse.

[SheungWan]

On 4/15/2018 at 4:13 PM, The manic said:

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.

 

9 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

If you read this, both you and him will know what did or did not happen.

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

Actually not a lot happened immediately after WW1 apart from a series of agreements which were not ratified other than the Geneva Protocol which wasn't finished until the mid 1920s. As for 'the civilised world', well that presumably included the states which were dropping chemicals in WW1. The Geneva Protocol was signed by both the USSR and some Arab States. So-called 'Stalinist thug states did not exist until post-1945 unless one wants to include the constituent parts of the USSR and Arab dictatorships not a significant factor until well after that. Fast forward to recent history and one of the most well-known users of chemical warfare was Saddam Hussein. Anyone here remember Chemical Ali? Sort of been airbrushed over by those who would rather good old Saddam still had his State to sling stuff around.

Edited April 18, 2018 by SheungWan

[Naam]

Quote

The manic said:

It's not the quantity of deaths but their manner. After WW1 the civilised world agreed not to use chemical weapons.

right you are! after WW1 the civilised world used only civilised weapons such as nuclear warheads, bombs, landmines, grenades, cruise missiles, rocket firing drones, agent orange (just to name a few) to kill and maim in an honourable, civilised and acceptable manner.