Russia accuses jihadists of using chemical weapons in Aleppo

[webfact]

Russia accuses jihadists of using chemical weapons in Aleppo

Robert Hackwill

 

 

ALEPPO: -- The Russian Defence Ministry has accused rebel forces in eastern Aleppo of using chemical weapons in an attack of Syrian army forces four days before an international inquiry’s mandate for apportioning blame for their use ends.

 

Russia’s TASS news agency says around 30 soldiers were caught in the attack, which took place on Sunday evening. Most have been hospitalised in Aleppo. Local media said former al-Qaeda faction Fatah Halab was responsible, adding it was the third such attack by them in a month.

 

Russia’s foreign ministry said on Friday it wants the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to urgently send a mission to the city. It said it had evidence of a separate attack by Syrian rebels using chemical weapons.

 

An international inquiry has been underway for the past year on the use of chemical weapons in the conflict, and has so far confirmed three chlorine gas attacks by Syrian government forces, and a mustard gas attack by ISIL. The inquiry’s mandate, extended at the end of October, ends on Friday November 18.

 

 

-- © Copyright Euronews 2016-11-15

 

[ThaiWest]

OH! Is there something NEW(s) here?!

[ThaiWest]

BUT... Is this not a‘kind to “the kittle calling the pot“ BLACK?

[Kasset Tak]

46 minutes ago, ThaiWest said:

BUT... Is this not a‘kind to “the kittle calling the pot“ BLACK?

Yea, but US, EU and most of the news always blame Russia and Assad for everything happening in Syria so whenever they can prove that "hey the US/NATO backed rebels are doing this" then the Russians will show it to the rest of the world.

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, Kasset Tak said:

Yea, but US, EU and most of the news always blame Russia and Assad for everything happening in Syria so whenever they can prove that "hey the US/NATO backed rebels are doing this" then the Russians will show it to the rest of the world.

Always?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/

Quote

Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official

 

[ThaiWest]

Oh my God, by all means, believe the UN. After all, THEY have NO agenda, right? 

[craigt3365]

27 minutes ago, ThaiWest said:

Oh my God, by all means, believe the UN. After all, THEY have NO agenda, right? 

Every organization has an agenda....

[ThaiWest]

1 minute ago, craigt3365 said:

Every organization has an agenda....

 

Thank you. So, lets not be quoting or assuming so. There is very little creditability with the UN; even less than nation states, in fact.  

[craigt3365]

21 minutes ago, ThaiWest said:

 

Thank you. So, lets not be quoting or assuming so. There is very little creditability with the UN; even less than nation states, in fact.  

So you are saying Russia has better credibility than the UN?  I don't think so....

[JuanCarlos]

28 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

So you are saying Russia has better credibility than the UN?  I don't think so....

Unfortunatly by looking at what the UN do since a decade : UN has no better credibility than Russia...

If UN had any power to enforce or help in any way we would already know. As long as the UN has some members with Veto options this "group" is a farce. Russia may be bad, UN is just useless

[ThaiWest]

2 minutes ago, JuanCarlos said:

Unfortunatly by looking at what the UN do since a decade : UN has no better credibility than Russia...

If UN had any power to enforce or help in any way we would already know. As long as the UN has some members with Veto options this "group" is a farce. Russia may be bad, UN is just useless

 

Amen.

[nottocus]

Trump will sort them out.

[craigt3365]

7 minutes ago, JuanCarlos said:

Unfortunatly by looking at what the UN do since a decade : UN has no better credibility than Russia...

If UN had any power to enforce or help in any way we would already know. As long as the UN has some members with Veto options this "group" is a farce. Russia may be bad, UN is just useless

You are aware Russia vetoed every security council resolution regarding Syria?  Agree with you, the security council is a joke.  Needs to be done away with.

[JuanCarlos]

34 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

You are aware Russia vetoed every security council resolution regarding Syria?  Agree with you, the security council is a joke.  Needs to be done away with.

Well I know, as the USA veto every resolution linked to Israel,...this is not really a council, but more a playground with a few bullies who can just veto everything which is not in their interest...This veto system rigg all the process

[Dustdevil]

1 hour ago, ThaiWest said:

 

Thank you. So, lets not be quoting or assuming so. There is very little creditability with the UN; even less than nation states, in fact.  

That's true. They're worse than useless in their peacekeeping missions.

[Dustdevil]

3 minutes ago, JuanCarlos said:

Well I know, as the USA veto every resolution linked to Israel,...this is not really a council, but more a playground with a few bullies who can just veto everything which is not in their interest...This veto system rigg all the process

That's because the US will not allow another holocaust, although Obama has always been furious about Netanyahu's continued BS. Too many Jew-haters everywhere, including and especially (outside the Middle East) the UK.

[JuanCarlos]

14 minutes ago, Dustdevil said:

That's because the US will not allow another holocaust, although Obama has always been furious about Netanyahu's continued BS. Too many Jew-haters everywhere, including and especially (outside the Middle East) the UK.

Well a bit OT but the USA vetoes are not always to protect Israel,  most of the time to avoid a condamnation  by th UN of the settlements...Obama may be furious but yet as long as the bullies can bully....

[ThaiWest]

7 minutes ago, JuanCarlos said:

Well a bit OT but the USA vetoes are not always to protect Israel,  most of the time to avoid a condamnation  by th UN of the settlements...Obama may be furious but yet as long as the bullies can bully....

 

No argument. The UN is nothing more than a rich person’s playground to find ways to put money in the pockets of their friends and their friends to put money in their pockets...of course all in the name of humanity and non-profit! It’s nothing more than a BLACK HOLE for all the PEOPLE’S MONEY to go into! [Come to think of it, a little like the “Clinton Foundation!”]

[craigt3365]

33 minutes ago, JuanCarlos said:

Well I know, as the USA veto every resolution linked to Israel,...this is not really a council, but more a playground with a few bullies who can just veto everything which is not in their interest...This veto system rigg all the process

Agreed!  But we don't have a maniacal dictator in Israel killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians like we do in Syria.  And using chemical weapons to do so....

[Morch]

1 hour ago, JuanCarlos said:

Well I know, as the USA veto every resolution linked to Israel,...this is not really a council, but more a playground with a few bullies who can just veto everything which is not in their interest...This veto system rigg all the process

 

A lot of people are not satisfied with the UN, the UNSC and other international bodies. And with good reason. Then again, there's usually very little by way of offers regarding alternatives. I'm not sure that reverting to a state of things where there's less international communication and cooperation would play out better.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Morch

[JuanCarlos]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

A lot of people are not satisfied with the UN, the UNSC and other international bodies. And with good reason. Then again, there's usually very little by way of offers regarding alternatives. I'm not sure that reverting to a state of things where there's less international communication and cooperation would play out better.

I am all for more communication, I just think the "veto" system riggs the whole thing

Edited November 15, 2016 by JuanCarlos

[Morch]

14 minutes ago, JuanCarlos said:

I am all for more communication, I just think the "veto" system riggs the whole thing

 

If not the veto thing, what then? A simple majority of votes? I think most would acknowledge that voting is not necessarily always done according to objective measures, but down to same old politics of interest groups and pressures. There are many instances in which voting blocs are obvious, regardless of the merit of resolutions. Such voting blocs also serve to determine the UN agenda.

 

Further, canceling the veto system does not solve problems with the UN unable to enforce resolutions. It could mean less vetoed resolutions, perhaps to be replaces with more numerous interest based accepted resolutions. Not sure there's a difference.

[JuanCarlos]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

If not the veto thing, what then? A simple majority of votes? I think most would acknowledge that voting is not necessarily always done according to objective measures, but down to same old politics of interest groups and pressures. There are many instances in which voting blocs are obvious, regardless of the merit of resolutions. Such voting blocs also serve to determine the UN agenda.

 

Further, canceling the veto system does not solve problems with the UN unable to enforce resolutions. It could mean less vetoed resolutions, perhaps to be replaces with more numerous interest based accepted resolutions. Not sure there's a difference.

Well at least there would be some kind of discussion about the resolutions and will put a bit more pressure on the current veto holders and their friends. I am quite sure  veto is neither done according to objective measures....

 

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, JuanCarlos said:

Well at least there would be some kind of discussion about the resolutions and will put a bit more pressure on the current veto holders and their friends. I am quite sure  veto is neither done according to objective measures....

 

 

There is discussion on all resolutions, even those vetoed. I think abolishing it without a carefully thought out alternative would result in a UN characterized by even more demagoguery, bloc voting, and tit for tat resolutions. Of course the use of veto power reflects interests as well. My point being that perhaps it is better to have a lower number of wide consensus resolutions over a larger number of more partisan resolutions.

[coma]

Chlorine in ya pool, mustard on ya sandwiches. If that is what they want to do to each other then leave them to it. People from the other side of the planet getting involved is just getting more people killed. And before the greenie apologists start crying " oh but the civilians ".  It is a civil war. The civilians are the soldiers. Pick up a weapon, pick a side and start fighting for yourselves. For what you believe Syria should be at the end of this mess. And if/when it spills out of Syria then let its neighbours deal with it. The UN is a farce and couldn't deal with a wet dream let alone the Syrian conflict. The US coalition has been banging away without a result, largely due to themselves not even knowing whether they are coming or going. Creating and arming terrorist groups, to try and topple someone they have a personal grudge against [ sounds familiar ] and prolonging the inevitable. Which is the defeat of ALL anti regime forces in Syria and Mr Assad remaining in power. Anybody that believes otherwise is delusional. If Assad was meant to be toppled it would have happened a long time ago.

[Chicog]

Russia would know all about dangerous chemicals, eh?