Exclusive - Assad linked to Syrian chemical attacks for first time

[fasteddie]

36 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Unless mistaken, there were clips of Syrian helicopters dropping barrel bombs posted on previous topics. There's quite a bit of documented aerial attacks. Similarly, the "reports" of the two "journalists" mentioned were previously presented on the forum, neither came off as very credible, or objective.

You have to be joking, I challenge you to back up the statement ", neither came off as very credible, or objective."

One is English and one Canadian, and unlike most reports from other sources they have actually been there.

And as for barrel bombs dropped from helicopters, so what, it doesn't mean they contain chemicals, just explosives.

 

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, fasteddie said:

You have to be joking, I challenge you to back up the statement ", neither came off as very credible, or objective."

One is English and one Canadian, and unlike most reports from other sources they have actually been there.

And as for barrel bombs dropped from helicopters, so what, it doesn't mean they contain chemicals, just explosives.

 

 

I am not joking at the least. Their reports were discussed on these topics in the past, you are welcome to look them up. Is the mention of their nationalities supposed to mean anything with regard to their credibility and objectivity? There are posters from Western countries singing Assad's praises too.

 

Deflect all you like, but it would take some creative imagination to assume that rebels were able to time a ground based chemical attack to exactly coincide with a dropping of a barrel bomb by Assad's forces. And, btw, barrel bombs in general, aren't really that acceptable as far as war practices go.

[fasteddie]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I am not joking at the least. Their reports were discussed on these topics in the past, you are welcome to look them up. Is the mention of their nationalities supposed to mean anything with regard to their credibility and objectivity? There are posters from Western countries singing Assad's praises too.

 

Deflect all you like, but it would take some creative imagination to assume that rebels were able to time a ground based chemical attack to exactly coincide with a dropping of a barrel bomb by Assad's forces. And, btw, barrel bombs in general, aren't really that acceptable as far as war practices go.

Oh no, you made the statement now supply the evidence, and just Thai visa members saying so wont cut it.

And as for the last line, don't be ridiculous, what's the difference between barrel bombs and other bombs?

Edited January 14, 2017 by fasteddie

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, fasteddie said:

Oh no, you made the statement now supply the evidence, and just Thai visa members saying so wont cut it.

And as for the last line, don't be ridiculous, what's the difference between barrel bombs and other bombs?

 

Can't see that you bothered backing anything you posted on this topic. Not feeling the need to play secretary. And, newsflash, you're also just a Thaivisa member "saying so".

 

Indiscriminate attacks on civilians are frowned upon, to put it mildly. Barrel bombs are indiscriminate, and so were most of the aerial attacks carried out by Assad's forces and Russia's. Barrel bombs are even more so in relation to conventional unguided munitions. This too, was discussed on previous topics.

[fasteddie]

19 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Can't see that you bothered backing anything you posted on this topic. Not feeling the need to play secretary. And, newsflash, you're also just a Thaivisa member "saying so".

 

Indiscriminate attacks on civilians are frowned upon, to put it mildly. Barrel bombs are indiscriminate, and so were most of the aerial attacks carried out by Assad's forces and Russia's. Barrel bombs are even more so in relation to conventional unguided munitions. This too, was discussed on previous topics.

"Indiscriminate attacks on civilians are frowned upon, to put it mildly"

Agreed, but I would ask you what would be Assad's motive for doing such a thing? The man is a popular president, his armed forces are over 80% Sunni, why does he command such respect from those the western media would have us believe are his sworn enemies?

Could it be Syria is the only secular state in the middle east where all religions live in peace together? Why is the west so determined to destroy this once peaceful secular country and turn it in to another jihadist hell hole aka Iraq and Libya?

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, fasteddie said:

"Indiscriminate attacks on civilians are frowned upon, to put it mildly"

Agreed, but I would ask you what would be Assad's motive for doing such a thing? The man is a popular president, his armed forces are over 80% Sunni, why does he command such respect from those the western media would have us believe are his sworn enemies?

Could it be Syria is the only secular state in the middle east where all religions live in peace together? Why is the west so determined to destroy this once peaceful secular country and turn it in to another jihadist hell hole aka Iraq and Libya?

 

Assad's main motivation is to stay in power, by all means necessary. If this entails bombing Syrian citizens to submission, oh well. And he is not a "popular president" and was not a "popular president". That is, unless one takes the elections is Syria seriously.

 

The situation in Syria was never about clear lines between Sunni and Shia, and it was never denied that there are Sunni on Assad's side. The generalizations you apply are factitious, same goes for characterizing all Western media reports as upholding such views.

 

Syria was "peaceful" in the sense that it was ran by a dictator. Could be argued it was better than the current situation, but that's not quite the same thing. Similarly, the over-reaching nonsense about "all religions" is incorrect. And as I do not subscribe to your views, I see no need to answer such obvious troll questions about supposed Western designs.

Edited January 14, 2017 by Morch

[craigt3365]

10 hours ago, fasteddie said:

"Indiscriminate attacks on civilians are frowned upon, to put it mildly"

Agreed, but I would ask you what would be Assad's motive for doing such a thing? The man is a popular president, his armed forces are over 80% Sunni, why does he command such respect from those the western media would have us believe are his sworn enemies?

Could it be Syria is the only secular state in the middle east where all religions live in peace together? Why is the west so determined to destroy this once peaceful secular country and turn it in to another jihadist hell hole aka Iraq and Libya?

If you read up on human rights violations BEFORE the civil war, you'll see Assad and his father before him were hardly good to their people.  As for chemical attacks, here's some good info to read.  Not propaganda.

 

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

Quote

 

The Ghouta chemical attack occurred in Ghouta, Syria, during the Syrian Civil War in the early hours of 21 August 2013. Two opposition-controlled areas in the suburbs around Damascus, Syria were struck by rockets containing the chemical agent sarin. Estimates of the death toll range from at least 281 people^[2] to 1,729.^[13] The attack was the deadliest use of chemical weapons since the Iran–Iraq War.^[14][15][16]

 

Inspectors from the United Nations Mission already in Syria to investigate an earlier alleged chemical weapons attack,^[17](p6)[18] requested access to sites in Ghouta the day after the attack,^{[19][20][21][21][22][23]} and called for a ceasefire to allow inspectors to visit the Ghouta sites.^[19] The Syrian government granted the UN's request on 25 August,^[24][25][26] and inspectors visited and investigated Moadamiyah in Western Ghouta the next day, and Zamalka and Ein Tarma in Eastern Ghouta on 28 and 29 August.^{[17](p6)[27][28]}

 

The UN investigation team confirmed "clear and convincing evidence" of the use of sarin delivered by surface-to-surface rockets,^[17][29] and a 2014 report by the UN Human Rights Council found that "significant quantities of sarin were used in a well-planned indiscriminate attack targeting civilian-inhabited areas, causing mass casualties.

 

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/10/blames-syria-forces-chemical-attack-161022033828052.html

 

Quote

 

UN blames Syria forces for third chemical attack

UN investigators say Syrian forces were behind a chemical weapons attack on civilians in Idlib province in March 2015.

 

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

[simple1]

9 hours ago, fasteddie said:

" Guess that Iranian, Lebanese and Russians aren't considered "foreigners" in your view."

 

All invited in by the internationally recognised legitimate government of Syria.

 

It's debatable that the Assad regime is internationally recognised as the legitimate government of Syria given the immensely corrupt electoral process, by which the so called "Constitution" guarantees Assad's party hold on power by allocation of 50% of parliamentary seats.

 

If you consider Hezbollah military forces, a designated terrorist group and other terror factions such as Assad's militia as 'legitimate' personally I consider your opinions vacuous. 

Edited January 15, 2017 by simple1

[DM07]

Surpriiiiiiiiiiise!


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[SaintLouisBlues]

9 minutes ago, simple1 said:

It's debatable that the Assad regime is internationally recognised as the legitimate government of Syria given the immensely corrupt electoral process, by which the so called "Constitution" guarantees Assad's party hold on power by allocation of 50% of parliamentary seats.

"Recognition" of a government has nothing to do with the perceived legitimacy of the process that leads to that government being formed. If one country maintains an embassy to another country, then the first country "recognises" the government of the second country as being legitimate. An insurgent group would not be recognised since it is not in effective control of the machinery of government. The USA has only recently "recognised" Castro's Cuba; previously their official view was it it was an insurgency that had seized power illegitimately - a fantasy most of the rest of the world did not share

 

The US maintains an embassy in Syria although its operations have been suspended; therefore the Assad regime is legitimately the government of Syria

Edited January 15, 2017 by SaintLouisBlues

[simple1]

7 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

"Recognition" of a government has nothing to do with the perceived legitimacy of the process that leads to that government being formed. If one country maintains an embassy to another country, then the first country "recognises" the government of the second country as being legitimate. An insurgent group would not be recognised since it is not in effective control of the machinery of government. The USA has only recently "recognised" Castro's Cuba; previously their official view was it it was an insurgency that had seized power illegitimately - a fantasy most of the rest of the world did not share

 

There are a number of countries who have politically recognised Syrian opposition coalition as the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people, not the Assad regime.

[SaintLouisBlues]

Just now, simple1 said:

There are a number of countries who have politically recognised Syrian opposition coalition as the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people, not the Assad regime.

Can you name them please. After all, "one" is a number

[craigt3365]

12 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

Can you name them please. After all, "one" is a number

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

Quote

The Syrian National Council (SNC)^[1] is recognized by 7 UN members, the Republic of Kosovo and the European Union as a legitimate representative of the Syrian people in the midst of the Syrian civil war, with three of those being permanent members of the Security Council. One country, Libya, recognises the SNC as the legitimate government of Syria.

 

27 UN members either recognize the SNC as the official government of Syria, or denounce Assad as the true leader. 

 

A bit more than "one"?  LOL

[craigt3365]

27 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

"Recognition" of a government has nothing to do with the perceived legitimacy of the process that leads to that government being formed. If one country maintains an embassy to another country, then the first country "recognises" the government of the second country as being legitimate. An insurgent group would not be recognised since it is not in effective control of the machinery of government. The USA has only recently "recognised" Castro's Cuba; previously their official view was it it was an insurgency that had seized power illegitimately - a fantasy most of the rest of the world did not share

 

The US maintains an embassy in Syria although its operations have been suspended; therefore the Assad regime is legitimately the government of Syria

One of the big problems with the Assad government, other than the massacre of their own people, is the last election was bogus.  Many nations don't recognize it.  Therefore, they don't recognize Assad as the president.  I'd bet a majority of Syrian's don't recognize him as president either!

[SaintLouisBlues]

Just now, craigt3365 said:

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

 

27 UN members either recognize the SNC as the official government of Syria, or denounce Assad as the true leader. 

 

A bit more than "one"?  LOL

"or denounce Assad" is not the same as withdrawing recognition. Of course people will take sides in a civil war and there will be a variety of views about whether Assad exercises effective control; it has nothing to do with whether his tactics in remaining in power are "acceptable", let alone democratic. I was merely pointing that out to the person exercising their democratic right of free speech without any reference to the norms of international relations. I regard Xi as heading the government of China while despising his tactics and many of the things he stands for. The two are unrelated

[craigt3365]

9 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

"or denounce Assad" is not the same as withdrawing recognition. Of course people will take sides in a civil war and there will be a variety of views about whether Assad exercises effective control; it has nothing to do with whether his tactics in remaining in power are "acceptable", let alone democratic. I was merely pointing that out to the person exercising their democratic right of free speech without any reference to the norms of international relations. I regard Xi as heading the government of China while despising his tactics and many of the things he stands for. The two are unrelated

From my link:

Quote

Verbal support
Rejection of Assad government
Informal relations

 

That would mean they reject and don't recognize Assad as the official president.

[SaintLouisBlues]

4 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

That would mean they reject and don't recognize Assad as the official president.

I think you're mistaking me for someone who cares. I was merely pointing out that the poster to whom I originally replied had a distorted view of international relations

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

I think you're mistaking me for someone who cares. I was merely pointing out that the poster to whom I originally replied had a distorted view of international relations

Perhaps he was someone who cares? LOL

 

And his view is not distorted.  I showed a link proving that.