The current situation in Syria is a civil war with possibly some actions which would have been contrary to some UN and other international agreements concerning types of weapons to not be used. As a matter of fact, Syria did NOT sign these agreements so the rest of you can butt out and play in your own back yard.

How bizarre to on the one hand rely on the findings of United Nations weapons inspectors to establish the truth, and yet when it comes to the international players following the rules before engagement they intend to simply bypass the United Nations just because it doesn't suit them?

As Sergei Lavrov quite rightly asks where would the international legal authority be for this kind of action if it they don't get sanctioned by the security council first?

Whilst Syria is not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, the UN views the deployment of such weapons as a crime against humanity that requires action against the offending State.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says any use of chemical weapons in Syria would amount to a "crime against humanity" that would result in "serious consequences" if the allegations prove to be true. Mr. Ban made the comments during a visit to Seoul, adding that use of chemical weapons under any circumstance would violate international law.

http://www.voanews.com/content/un-chemical-weapons-in-syria-would-be-crime-against-humanity/1735312.html

Crimes Against Humanity --- by what law, under what courts juridiction, penalised by what authority ?

Threatening "serious consequences" to a country already killing it's own people by the hundreds is a bit facile. As soon as you start to implement those "consequences" you are sucked into the maelstrom with no escape. There is NO winner in this situation. Keep out, just take care of refugees as best can be done. They understand the situation much better than you do.

Crimes against humanity are prosecuted by the International Criminal Court, to date their have only been a few sucessful prosecutions. The definitions for "crimes against humanity" are captured by the Rome Statute. If it is established that their is insufficient will by State players to take action, it just sets the stage for a downhill spiral in other future conflict zones.

OK -- if you want to be pedantic about it Bring the charges and present the evidence -- even if the accused are absent.

Meantime -- back in the fields -- the Syrians will decide their own future. Trying to influence the outcome, or even just police the situation, is a disaster waiting to happen. Does no-one remember what happened in Bosnia ?

As an aside - Does not "self-determination" constitute one of the most basic principles of western democracy? Why are so many people hell-bent on IMPOSING a solution on a country. If they want to have a theocracy, autocracy, monarchy, whatever - who are we to say otherwise ?

Who said they want a democracy?

The current situation in Syria is a civil war with possibly some actions which would have been contrary to some UN and other international agreements concerning types of weapons to not be used. As a matter of fact, Syria did NOT sign these agreements so the rest of you can butt out and play in your own back yard.

How bizarre to on the one hand rely on the findings of United Nations weapons inspectors to establish the truth, and yet when it comes to the international players following the rules before engagement they intend to simply bypass the United Nations just because it doesn't suit them?

As Sergei Lavrov quite rightly asks where would the international legal authority be for this kind of action if it they don't get sanctioned by the security council first?

Whilst Syria is not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, the UN views the deployment of such weapons as a crime against humanity that requires action against the offending State.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says any use of chemical weapons in Syria would amount to a "crime against humanity" that would result in "serious consequences" if the allegations prove to be true. Mr. Ban made the comments during a visit to Seoul, adding that use of chemical weapons under any circumstance would violate international law.

http://www.voanews.com/content/un-chemical-weapons-in-syria-would-be-crime-against-humanity/1735312.html

No UN resolution, including a Security Council resolution, is binding on any country, and no one needs the permission of the UN to take military action. The UN has no teeth unless some countries volunteer to get involved with it.

No country needs "international legal authority" to take action. So yes, any country may "bypass the UN."

Who said they want a democracy?

Obama, Cameron, French, Germans, etc......

No, I think those guys are trying to offer them democracy. I haven't heard anybody say they want democracy.

The ones you mentioned I think just want to get rid of Assad.

The current situation in Syria is a civil war with possibly some actions which would have been contrary to some UN and other international agreements concerning types of weapons to not be used. As a matter of fact, Syria did NOT sign these agreements so the rest of you can butt out and play in your own back yard.

How bizarre to on the one hand rely on the findings of United Nations weapons inspectors to establish the truth, and yet when it comes to the international players following the rules before engagement they intend to simply bypass the United Nations just because it doesn't suit them?

As Sergei Lavrov quite rightly asks where would the international legal authority be for this kind of action if it they don't get sanctioned by the security council first?

Whilst Syria is not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, the UN views the deployment of such weapons as a crime against humanity that requires action against the offending State.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says any use of chemical weapons in Syria would amount to a "crime against humanity" that would result in "serious consequences" if the allegations prove to be true. Mr. Ban made the comments during a visit to Seoul, adding that use of chemical weapons under any circumstance would violate international law.

http://www.voanews.com/content/un-chemical-weapons-in-syria-would-be-crime-against-humanity/1735312.html

No UN resolution, including a Security Council resolution, is binding on any country, and no one needs the permission of the UN to take military action. The UN has no teeth unless some countries volunteer to get involved with it.

No country needs "international legal authority" to take action. So yes, any country may "bypass the UN."

From the USA perspective that may be right but according to a Queen's Counsel barrister who was interviewed on BBC world, this evening, it may not be so clear cut for Britain because they are signatories to the International Criminal Court (whereas America isn't).

According to the lawyer if UK circumnavigates the security council then they would be unable to claim any attacks against Syria were legal until the United Nations inspectors have firstly unequivocally confirmed that Syria were the ones responsible. David Cameron needs to be more careful about this which explains now why an earlier report said the British attorney general was looking at how it could be " made legal " for the UK to attack

Edited August 27, 201312 yr by midas

No, I think those guys are trying to offer them democracy. I haven't heard anybody say they want democracy.

The ones you mentioned I think just want to get rid of Assad.

...get rid of the devil you know, .....for the devil you don't yet know.

Whilst Syria is not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, the UN views the deployment of such weapons as a crime against humanity that requires action against the offending State.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says any use of chemical weapons in Syria would amount to a "crime against humanity" that would result in "serious consequences" if the allegations prove to be true. Mr. Ban made the comments during a visit to Seoul, adding that use of chemical weapons under any circumstance would violate international law.

http://www.voanews.com/content/un-chemical-weapons-in-syria-would-be-crime-against-humanity/1735312.html

No UN resolution, including a Security Council resolution, is binding on any country, and no one needs the permission of the UN to take military action. The UN has no teeth unless some countries volunteer to get involved with it.

No country needs "international legal authority" to take action. So yes, any country may "bypass the UN."

From the USA perspective that may be right but according to a Queen's Counsel barrister who was interviewed on BBC world, this evening, it may not be so clear cut for Britain because they are signatories to the International Criminal Court (whereas America isn't).

According to the lawyer if UK circumnavigates the security council then they would be unable to claim any attacks against Syria were legal until the United Nations inspectors have firstly unequivocally confirmed that Syria were the ones responsible. David Cameron needs to be more careful about this which explains now why an earlier report said the British attorney general was looking at how it could be " made legal " for the UK to attack

I'm pretty sure Syria didn't sign up for the ICC either - so that's another red-herring. Really - they want to do what they want to do, and there is nothing we should be doing to stop them. It's like having bad neighbours - you can complain and build bigger fences, but you can't go in -- just hope they settle down.

No, I think those guys are trying to offer them democracy. I haven't heard anybody say they want democracy.

The ones you mentioned I think just want to get rid of Assad.

...get rid of the devil you know, .....for the devil you don't yet know.

Oh, don't get too worried, if the next one is worse, then just get rid of him before Assad's trial is over and he can be reinstated. Just look at Egypt and Mubarek!

By the way, what is the prevailing attitude of Germany and France on this issue?

Who said they want a democracy?

Democracy is about as suitable for middle eastern states as syphilis was to the Aztecs. As an aside foisting something unwelcome and disastrous on an alien culture is not solely a western preserve, as the appologists who soft soap Sharia law in the west know only too well.

The defence department has announced that the mission is a GO. If they are going to do it, I just hope they make it worthwhile and degrade Asad's capabilities in a real way.

How bizarre to on the one hand rely on the findings of United Nations weapons inspectors to establish the truth, and yet when it comes to the international players following the rules before engagement they intend to simply bypass the United Nations just because it doesn't suit them?

As Sergei Lavrov quite rightly asks where would the international legal authority be for this kind of action if it they don't get sanctioned by the security council first?

Whilst Syria is not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, the UN views the deployment of such weapons as a crime against humanity that requires action against the offending State.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says any use of chemical weapons in Syria would amount to a "crime against humanity" that would result in "serious consequences" if the allegations prove to be true. Mr. Ban made the comments during a visit to Seoul, adding that use of chemical weapons under any circumstance would violate international law.

http://www.voanews.com/content/un-chemical-weapons-in-syria-would-be-crime-against-humanity/1735312.html

No UN resolution, including a Security Council resolution, is binding on any country, and no one needs the permission of the UN to take military action. The UN has no teeth unless some countries volunteer to get involved with it.

No country needs "international legal authority" to take action. So yes, any country may "bypass the UN."

From the USA perspective that may be right but according to a Queen's Counsel barrister who was interviewed on BBC world, this evening, it may not be so clear cut for Britain because they are signatories to the International Criminal Court (whereas America isn't).

According to the lawyer if UK circumnavigates the security council then they would be unable to claim any attacks against Syria were legal until the United Nations inspectors have firstly unequivocally confirmed that Syria were the ones responsible. David Cameron needs to be more careful about this which explains now why an earlier report said the British attorney general was looking at how it could be " made legal " for the UK to attack

There's no teeth in the criminal court. Nothing the UN does is binding on a sovereign nation. If the UK wants to play along with the UN that's fine, but they don't have to.

The defence department has announced that the mission is a GO. If they are going to do it, I just hope they make it worthwhile and degrade Asad's capabilities in a real way.

It is a nation that doesn't understand our ways not do we really understand theirs. Many countries have had civil wars, if that's what this could be called.

I wish all other countries would stay out of it and let them fight it out.

The defence department has announced that the mission is a GO. If they are going to do it, I just hope they make it worthwhile and degrade Asad's capabilities in a real way.

By that I assume you mean they are ready to act if instructed.

Britain's parliament has been recalled for tomorrow, so there's no way the Brits are getting sucked into another US f*** up without everyone being completely on board.

They announced that it is not a matter of if, but of when.

Who said they want a democracy?

They dont understand the meaning of the word, so its a moot point.

I think I might have posted this before, but it's very appropriate....

democracy-arriving.jpg

The non Muslim world has singularly failed to grasp that Islam and western-style democracy are incompatible -- even moderate Islam. Here's a couple of references for some insights...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23810527

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23607302

I think the Muslim world is still struggling to understand it as well. Can you name me one true Islamic "democracy"?

No -- there are plenty of autocracies and monarchies, but democracy is actually contrary to sharia law. Look what happens in Egypt since the times of Nasser - attempted western democracy has failed in the face of Islam so many times. UN is dominated by "Christian, Western Democrats". What chance does the muslim world have of being understood by a group of people who have never opened the Koran, let alone tried to understand it.

I am most certainly not saying which is right and which is wrong, each to their own. I have worked and lived amongst muslims several times for long periods and I have no problem with their culture. The thing is to remember that they play by very different rules to the "west" and one must respect that in order to get along with them.

For what it's worth - all the muslims I know are dismayed at the on-going bloodshed, but they vehemently defend their right to self-determination -- at whatever cost.

The problem as I see it with muslims is that they are happy to live in the west on their terms, they do not want to understand a western culture, just to change it to their own ways. When a muslim does not get their way they say they are offended, if I say the same about them I am a racist.

I have no doubt there are some muslims out there who decent folks but there are also a lot who want to put life back in the middle ages and dont care how they do it and they continue to do it around the world.

I think we have to face it that the muslim culture and the western one will never be compatible, accept get along as best we can, if cant then I fear for the future.

Who said they want a democracy?

They dont understand the meaning of the word, so its a moot point.

Perhaps it is worth remembering that Islam preserved and continued developing mathematics, philosophy and many other civilised practices where the greeks and romans had left off and while the UK was embroiled in various conflicts with vikings and others, and not really doing much of anything culturally. Needless to say USA didn't exist in modern terms...

Who said they want a democracy?

They dont understand the meaning of the word, so its a moot point.

Perhaps it is worth remembering that Islam preserved and continued developing mathematics, philosophy and many other civilised practices where the greeks and romans had left off and while the UK was embroiled in various conflicts with vikings and others, and not really doing much of anything culturally. Needless to say USA didn't exist in modern terms...

And ever since the Lighthouse of Alexandria was destroyed in 1323, what have they contributed?

I believe the current Arabic year is 1434, please tell me any Islamic country that prior to one hundred years ago has ever held elections?

When were the last elections in say KSA for example?

What has any Islamic/Arabic country contributed to the world in say the last 1,000 years?

Where is the Islamic telephone, televsion, car, washing machine for example?

^^^^^, whilst we are on the subject, why was I not allowed to teach probability in the Middle East, answer, because only Allah knows the future.

May explain why many of them refuse to have insurance for their car, blood money is accepted because its not haram, insurance is.

Are elections a true yardstick of a civilised state ?

The creation of material wealth is another western idea of becoming civilised.

If those same questions were posed regarding any South American country, or any African country, what would the comment be?

Edited to add a few references ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_inventions_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/how-islamic-inventors-changed-the-world-469452.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/01/29/muslim.inventions/index.html

There haven't been many recently because of the pesky westerners conquering most of the arabic countries from the times of the crusades untill relatively recently.

Drink your coffee and thank Yemen

Edited August 27, 201312 yr by jpinx

Are elections a true yardstick of a civilised state ?

The creation of material wealth is another western idea of becoming civilised.

If those same questions were posed regarding any South American country, or any African country, what would the comment be?

Are elections a true yardstick of a civilised state ?

I dont know, perhaps we had best wait for a Nt Korean or a Saudi to answer for us.

BTW since when did democracy equal a civilised state?

Lets wait for a Zimbabwean to answer shall we.

^^^^^, whilst we are on the subject, why was I not allowed to teach probability in the Middle East, answer, because only Allah knows the future.

May explain why many of them refuse to have insurance for their car, blood money is accepted because its not haram, insurance is.

I am glad to hear that some people have a first hand respect for someone else's culture and religion. It's just different -- not wrong

What about the followers of Mr Joseph Smith or Mr Ron Hubbard.?

^^^^^, whilst we are on the subject, why was I not allowed to teach probability in the Middle East, answer, because only Allah knows the future.

May explain why many of them refuse to have insurance for their car, blood money is accepted because its not haram, insurance is.

I am glad to hear that some people have a first hand respect for someone else's culture and religion. It's just different -- not wrong

What about the followers of Mr Joseph Smith or Mr Ron Hubbard.?

Yes it is different they are offended if they dont get their own way, there is not the same tolerance we offer to them, its all take or I am offended. Most of the trouble I see around the world is from Muslims, shooting or bombing and its been going on for many years now. I recently saw in a British newpaper fathers showing young children, they were certainly well under 10 how use a pistol, why to grow crops? I doubt it, there is among some muslims a great tendancy towards violence, why is that from a "peaceful" religon or is it a way of life. They are by far and away the biggest producers of offspring in the western world where they land, why? Is it a long term goal to take over by population their new homes?

I think the west is waking up to the problems, not the politicians they need the votes but the local populations see what is happening, one of the reasons I left I fear that one day the Kraken will wake and did not at my age to get involved.

Edited August 27, 201312 yr by nong38

^^^^^, whilst we are on the subject, why was I not allowed to teach probability in the Middle East, answer, because only Allah knows the future.

May explain why many of them refuse to have insurance for their car, blood money is accepted because its not haram, insurance is.

If they refuse, they get fined for having no insurance the same as they would anywhere else.

At least in the GCC countries.

Seems that most of the reader comments in the Guardian are saying the recent gas attack is the work of the western backed rebels.

Just another excuse to get us all of to war again.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/24/syria-cameron-obama-intervention

Other sources say the same thing - increasing evidence that the so called 'Rebels" have committed the atrocities by using the Sarin Gas

http://shoebat.com/2013/08/27/evidence-syrian-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-not-assad/

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/08/before-we-bomb-syria-shouldnt-we-seek-proof-of-guilt-.html

Here is a very reasoned article from Peter Hitchens, brother of the late Christopher, by no means a lefty, in fact quite the opposite.

Quite sickening to see and hear William Hague, Kerry and Hagel stating as fact that there is no doubt at all that Assad is responsible for this attack, and then producing----- absolutely no evidence at all. None. This whole affair stinks of a false flag operation, one of many that has been staged by the 'rebels', and it has a similar odour to the WMD claims before the invasion of Iraq. It is stretching credulity that the Syrian government would choose the day of arrival of a UN chemical weapons inspection team to attack the insurgents with CWs, insurgents who are losing ground daily to government forces, and are losing international support rapidly as evidence of their behaviour comes out, ie, videos of them ripping internal organs out of dead soldiers and eating them, sawing the heads off captured Christian priests with bread knives whilst screaming Allah Akbar. These are the type of Islamic terrorists the US, UK and France are supporting. Assad may be bad but he is not mad, the obvious question to ask is, who would benefit from the use of chemical weapons at this point, and the obvious answer is, The 'Rebels'. Ever since Obama's naive talk about a "red line being crossed", he is stuck with it, the rebels are desperate for The West to intervene as they will certainly be defeated if this doesn't happen, After the "red line" statement what better way for the West to attack Syria on their behalf. Crucially of course, Assad knows this as well, which makes it all the more unbelievable that he would be responsible, it just doesn't make sense. But we have been down this road before, back in the beginning of May, Carla Del Ponte, former UN chief prosecuter and head of a UN weapons inspection team in Syria stated, "It appears to our investigation that chemical weapons were used by the opposition, the rebels". "We have no information at all that the government have used chemical weapons". in another interview she stated " This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by government forces". At the end of May Turkish authorities, who are certainly not pro Assad, reported that, ' seven members of Syria's militant al - Nusra group were detained after police found sarin gas, which was reportedly going to be used in a bomb attack, during a search of the suspect's homes'. No red line crossed there then!

Yesterday sniper fire stopped a UN inspection team proceeding, sniper fire from a rebel controlled area. This is a tactic they have used before of course, in Houla. Claim a massacre, then shoot at the UN investigating team, pretending that government forces are preventing the inspectors fro entering. This too was eventually exposed for what it was, both the so called massacre and the sniping was the responsibility of the rebels. These so called rebels are being used by the West as useful idiots, which is shameful really, as they are a mixture of Al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalists from all over the globe, who believe they are participating in a holy war. They have no love of us, and this will return to bite us, just as it did in Libya, where they are now running amok creating chaos and misery for anyone who opposes them and their ideology. The most shameful thing of all is that our political masters are quite prepared to accept this on our behalf in pursuit of their geo political interests, and the interests of the military industrial complex who are pulling their strings. Compared to this, the interests and security of innocent civilians, both home and abroad, come a very poor second.

The Russian government actually sounds like it thinks it is a friend of the Islamic world despite its brutal repression of Muslims in Chechnya who want to separate from Russia to have their own country.

It was Putin who counseled Assad not to use chemical weapons but to use instead the kind of brutal and relentless heavy artillery and air power bombing barrage the Russians used against the Chechnyians during that conflict. It could appear however that the Syrian regime doesn't want to physically destroy much more of Syria, favoring instead the less physically destructive use of chemical warfare.

The two articles that follow reflect the real and global issues the conflict in Syria presents to all of us. Much of what is happening on the ground now in Syria has to do with the clash between the West and countries such as Russia, which align themselves with the CCP-PRC at the UN and in other global forums and issues. Beijing of course doesn't have a dog in this fight (unless you count Russia itself).

It's like the Cold War all over again.

Russia doesn't care whether there is or isn't any Islamic democracy while the United States is trying to include Muslims in embryonic democratic governments, such as in Egypt, where democracy and a struggling democratic culture are unknown qualities.

A rebel victory in Syria, should it occur, is unlikely to produce any kind of democracy regardless of which rebel groups dominate a post-Assad Syria. In part because of Russian support, however, Assad remains ensconced at the head of his regime and is believed to have the upper hand in the fighting.

Western leaders involved in the military aspects of the coming response anyway state clearly that the upcoming military action is not designed, nor is it intended, to produce regime change.

REPORT: Obama Is Considering A Limited Two-Day Strike On Syrian Military Targets

President Obama is considering a strike on Syrian military targets involving sea-launched cruise missiles or possibly long-range bombers that would last no more than two days, according to senior administration officials and reported by Karen DeYoung and Anne Gearan of The Washington Post.

Reuters reports that the West has told the opposition to expect a strike "within days."

The design of the potential attack implies sending a message to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad without becoming entrenched in the 29-month conflict.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/potential-us-strike-on-syria-2013-8#ixzz2dCi2y9Rd

Russia warns of 'catastrophic consequences' if Syria hit

Russia on Tuesday warned a military intervention in Syria could have "catastrophic consequences" for the region and called on the international community to show "prudence" over the crisis.

"We are calling on our American partners and all members of the world community to demonstrate prudence (and) strict observance of international law, especially the fundamental principles of the UN Charter," foreign ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said in a statement.

Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who is known for his sharp tongue, said on Twitter that "the West behaves towards the Islamic world like a monkey with a grenade."

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-warns-catastrophic-consequences-syria-hit-100720291.html

Edited August 27, 201312 yr by Publicus

Let's please stay on topic of politics. Religion should not be the primary focus of the thread.