White House backs Haley, Tillerson on Syria's Assad

[Morch]

5 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Seems chemical weapons were used again.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/04/middleeast/idlib-syria-attack/index.html

 

 

 

The official Russian version is:

 

Quote

The Russian Defense Ministry said the Khan Sheikhoun residents were exposed to toxic agents from a rebel arsenal hit by a Syrian air strike.

 

The ministry spokesman, Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov, said in a statement early Wednesday that Russian military assets registered the strike on a weapons depots and ammunition factory on the town's eastern outskirts. Konashenkov said the factory produced chemical weapons that were used in Iraq.

https://www.apnews.com/0bbfce47f71c4955bc532f39c69ff3a8

[Rob13]

On 4/1/2017 at 8:07 AM, rooster59 said:

Spicer blamed the inability of Trump's predecessor, Democrat Barack Obama, to persuade Assad to step down.

 

 

Trump was all for Obama backing away from supporting the rebels  and not deposing Assad a few years ago. It'd be good to see Trump  show a little self-awareness and remember what he said and supported in the past even if it's just for something from a few moments ago.

 

 Obama was on track though not pushing too hard. , The US has a long history of ousting dictators and not being able to fill the void left and creating nothing more than chaos and war zones. 

 

if Trump can remember this policy of leaving Assad in power, I'd say he's got the right idea. Too bad the whole policy will probably be  forgotten in the next week or 2.

Edited April 5, 2017 by Rob13

[simple1]

Let's see if the UN Security Council recommends any action/s against Assad's dictatorship & whether yet again Russia & China use their veto.

 

Be surprised if Trump lives up to his rhetoric and actually tables a 'solution' and implements..

Edited April 5, 2017 by simple1

[Thorgal]

OP is about the US declaring that removing Assad from power is no more a priority.

Assads army is actually pushing in Idlib province the 'rebels' back into Turkey. Small towns and medium sized agglomerations are easily captured with conventional weaponry during the last weeks since the fall of Allepo.

UN didn't sanctioned Assad in 2013 for the chemical attacks in Al Ghoutta region. Furthermore UN inspectors were allowed to witness Syrian chemical arsenal destruction in 2014.

I'm not pro Assad, but the timing of latests tragic events is more than suspicious...


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Thorgal]

https://www.apnews.com/0bbfce47f71c4955bc532f39c69ff3a8

 

How about the Syrian press ?

 

Assads latest election in 2014 made him win with 74% while some 88% of the Syrian people went to the urns...

 

Quote from your link :

 

"New York-based Human Rights Watch has accused the Syrian government of conducting at least eight chlorine gas attacks on opposition-controlled residential areas during the final months of the battle for Aleppo last year that killed at least nine civilians and injured 200."

 

A New York based Human Rights Watch ? Which one ?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[craigt3365]

53 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

OP is about the US declaring that removing Assad from power is no more a priority.

Assads army is actually pushing in Idlib province the 'rebels' back into Turkey. Small towns and medium sized agglomerations are easily captured with conventional weaponry during the last weeks since the fall of Allepo.

UN didn't sanctioned Assad in 2013 for the chemical attacks in Al Ghoutta region. Furthermore UN inspectors were allowed to witness Syrian chemical arsenal destruction in 2014.

I'm not pro Assad, but the timing of latests tragic events is more than suspicious...


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

Assad and his army haven't been in control for years. Without Russia and Iran. This would have been over a long time ago.  Iran and their religious fanatics have been the front line for many years.

 

Your info on the Hhouta chemical attack seems a bit off.

 

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

Åke Sellström, the leader of the UN Mission, characterized government explanations of rebel chemical weapons acquisition as unconvincing, resting in part upon "poor theories."^[40]

 

On 6 September 2013, the United States Senate filed a resolution to authorize use of military force against the Syrian military in response to the Ghouta attack.^[45] On 10 September 2013, the military intervention was averted when the Syrian government accepted a US–Russian negotiated deal to turn over "every single bit" of its chemical weapons stockpiles for destruction and declared its intention to join the Chemical Weapons Convention.^[46][47

[craigt3365]

11 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

How about the Syrian press ?

 

Assads latest election in 2014 made him win with 74% while some 88% of the Syrian people went to the urns...

 

Quote from your link :

 

"New York-based Human Rights Watch has accused the Syrian government of conducting at least eight chlorine gas attacks on opposition-controlled residential areas during the final months of the battle for Aleppo last year that killed at least nine civilians and injured 200."

 

A New York based Human Rights Watch ? Which one ?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

There was no election in 2014. Just a sham. And not recognized by the International community. 

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

How about the Syrian press ?

 

Assads latest election in 2014 made him win with 74% while some 88% of the Syrian people went to the urns...

 

Quote from your link :

 

"New York-based Human Rights Watch has accused the Syrian government of conducting at least eight chlorine gas attacks on opposition-controlled residential areas during the final months of the battle for Aleppo last year that killed at least nine civilians and injured 200."

 

A New York based Human Rights Watch ? Which one ?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

No idea what you're on about. I simply quoted the official Russian response. As so happens, it appeared in the AP story.

If you wish to quote an alternate version, from Syrian press (sycophantic as it is), or derail the topic by bringing up Assad's rule as democratic, go ahead.

 

[Thorgal]

There was no election in 2014. Just a sham. And not recognized by the International community. 

 

Indeed some Western countries refused Syrian citizens to vote in their overseas embassies.

 

Assads election has not been condemned by any official court as a sham. Reason enough for Trump, like in OP, to respect wisely Syrian sovereignty.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Thorgal]

Assad and his army haven't been in control for years. Without Russia and Iran. This would have been over a long time ago.  Iran and their religious fanatics have been the front line for many years.

 

Your info on the Hhouta chemical attack seems a bit off.

 

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

Åke Sellström, the leader of the UN Mission, characterized government explanations of rebel chemical weapons acquisition as unconvincing, resting in part upon "poor theories."^[40]

 

On 6 September 2013, the United States Senate filed a resolution to authorize use of military force against the Syrian military in response to the Ghouta attack.^[45] On 10 September 2013, the military intervention was averted when the Syrian government accepted a US–Russian negotiated deal to turn over "every single bit" of its chemical weapons stockpiles for destruction and declared its intention to join the Chemical Weapons Convention.^[46][47

 

Has Syria been officially condemned by the UN, ICC or any other official recognised body for WMD or chemical warfare for any use of chemical weapons ?

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[simple1]

15 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

Indeed some Western countries refused Syrian citizens to vote in their overseas embassies.

Assads election has not been condemned by any official court as a sham. Reason enough for Trump to respect Syrian sovereignty.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

<deleted> it's a dictatorship, all opposition is crushed, candidates are vetted by the regime etc etc. More detail at:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anonymous-2/assads-sham-election_b_9611636.html

Edited April 5, 2017 by simple1

[craigt3365]

14 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

Indeed some Western countries refused Syrian citizens to vote in their overseas embassies.

 

Assads election has not been condemned by any official court as a sham. Reason enough for Trump, like in OP, to respect wisely Syrian sovereignty.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

Indeed Assad refused Syrian citizens to vote.  In their own country!

 

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=47619#.WOTIJGcxVhE

 

Quote

UN cautions Syria against holding presidential election amidst ongoing ‘tragedy’

 

And there's this:

 

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

 

These guys might be the government of a large part of Syria.  A mess.  But still, the election was not internationally recognized.  For good reasons.

 

Hopefully you'll agree that the elections in Syria in 2014 were far from normal.

 

 

[craigt3365]

18 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

Has Syria been officially condemned by the UN, ICC or any other official recognised body for WMD or chemical warfare for any use of chemical weapons ?

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

Hard for the UN to do much when Russia and China block all the resolutions.  The world has condemned Syria for use of chemical weapons.  It's all over the news.  Again.

 

Are you really standing up for this regime?

[Thorgal]

Hard for the UN to do much when Russia and China block all the resolutions.  The world has condemned Syria for use of chemical weapons.  It's all over the news.  Again.  

Are you really standing up for this regime?

 

 

Again, I'm not a pro-Assad supporter or pro-Syrian government partisan.

 

Assad, in fact, has never been challenged in any official court case, for any official conviction of UN, ICC or any sovereign national court from any country in the world.

 

UN representative Del Ponte declared officially that Syrian Army didn't use chemical weapons in 2013 after official UN investigation. Samples taken were matching the chemical composition of Syrian batch, but used by the opposition. Hence, the confusion of many.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_International_Commission_of_Inquiry_on_the_Syrian_Arab_Republic

 

Again, no official condemnation.

 

Asking myself this question is more than normal after Trumps' decision to respect Syrian sovereignty as mentioned in OP.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

[Thorgal]

  And there's this:  

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

 

These guys might be the government of a large part of Syria.  A mess.  But still, the election was not internationally recognized.  For good reasons.

 

Hopefully you'll agree that the elections in Syria in 2014 were far from normal.

 

 

 

 

 Syrian National Council is not relevant, because it's not elected by majority of the Syrian people. It's backed by only 17 states out 195 countries in the world. Only 2 of the 195 states are not member of the UN. So, no relevant or legitimate recognition to this non democratic fraction.

 

The Syrian 2014 election was indeed far from normal, because many voters had to cross or trespass hostile territory in order to vote for their future president. Choice out of 3 candidates.

 

Some +12% was not able or wanting to vote.

 

The Syrian parliament voted by constitution that the results would be acceptable to nominate the future president.

 

Makes for me sense, that if +80% of people can show up during elections in wartime, that those elections would be legitimate and constitutional acceptable...

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

[craigt3365]

12 hours ago, Thorgal said:

 Syrian National Council is not relevant, because it's not elected by majority of the Syrian people. It's backed by only 17 states out 195 countries in the world. Only 2 of the 195 states are not member of the UN. So, no relevant or legitimate recognition to this non democratic fraction.

 

The Syrian 2014 election was indeed far from normal, because many voters had to cross or trespass hostile territory in order to vote for their future president. Choice out of 3 candidates.

 

Some +12% was not able or wanting to vote.

 

The Syrian parliament voted by constitution that the results would be acceptable to nominate the future president.

 

Makes for me sense, that if +80% of people can show up during elections in wartime, that those elections would be legitimate and constitutional acceptable...

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

Syrian National Council is relevant.  They are even participating in the peace talks.  So if not relevant, why their involvement?

 

Syria has never had proper elections.  I'm sure you'll agree they are far from free and fair elections.  I sure hope so anyway.  Do some research on how the elections occur.  And what it takes to become a presidential candidate.  Right there, the problems begin.  Kinda like in North Korea.  If you are only given one choice, guess who's going to win? LOL

 

Bad arguments here.  Amazing you are supporting this regime. 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anonymous-2/assads-sham-election_b_9611636.html

Quote

 

Of course, there is no independent judiciary in Syria; Assad is the head of the Supreme Judicial Committee, which oversees functioning of the judiciary: Constitution, articles 132, 133. Even the judges of the Supreme Constitutional Court, Syria’s highest court, do not have tenure: Constitution, article 143.

 

The result is that Assad will always have, and has always had, a majority of the seats in Parliament.

 

 

Gotta love this part:

Quote

So another law was passed. This law provided that refugees who had departed Syria at checkpoints not controlled by the regime were not eligible to vote. Most refugees who escape Syria other than through official crossings are fleeing Assad and are vehemently anti-Assad. So that took care of that segment of the population.

 

Far from normal is an understatement.  Please read this:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2014/06/explainer-who-can-vote-syria-elections-20146211522563602.html
 

Quote

 

For the first time in four decades, the ballots in Syria’s election will not just have “yes” or “no” options to tick.

.....

Scheduled for June 3, the national vote will not be available nationwide: The government will not be able to set up ballot boxes in most towns located in the country’s north and east. Nor does it control some areas just a few kilometres from the capital, Damascus, in addition to most of Deraa province in the south of the country.

 

 

[NanLaew]

On 4/3/2017 at 2:14 PM, craigt3365 said:

IMHO, Obama handled it badly.  The "red line" turned out to be just bluster.  An embarrassment for the Obama administration.

And IMHO, the current administration squarely blaming the past administration's inaction while handily bypassing the need for anything that approaches an alternative strategy, ie. backing both Haley and Tillerson on their decision to sit on their hands.

 

Trump has just said that this recent attack has, "...crossed many lines..." and Pence has just added that, "...all options are on the table..." when it comes to a solution to Syria. Same old rhetoric.

 

I can probably wait for the next administration to blame the current occupant of the White House for the ongoing debacle in Syria but the Syrians can't.

[Thorgal]

[mention=5869]craigt3365[/mention]

 

Again, I'm not a pro Assad partisan.

 

UN observers, delegation didn't condemn latest 2014 elections in Syria as fraudulent.

 

True point is that Syrian elections since independency declaration was never overseen or controlled by any foreign independent body.

 

And here again, no condemnation by any official court instance in order to point clearly fraudulent elections, as in the past as per today.

 

The Syrian refugees had the right to vote, but like I've explained, they were refused to go to vote in their embassies in Europe.

 

Again, the Syrian National Council is just a fabricated, non legitimate product of a fraction of Western countries. Not relevant, and will never be.

 

No official convictions to Assad or his government, means no point to blame. And Trump understood this quite fast, like in OP.

 

Case closed due to insufficient and inconsistent proof.

 

http://webtv.un.org/watch/bashar-ja’afari-syria-and-us-observers-on-the-syrian-presidential-elections-press-conference/3629865488001

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

 

[craigt3365]

29 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

[mention=5869]craigt3365[/mention]

 

Again, I'm not a pro Assad partisan.

 

UN observers, delegation didn't condemn latest 2014 elections in Syria as fraudulent.

 

True point is that Syrian elections since independency declaration was never overseen or controlled by any foreign independent body.

 

And here again, no condemnation by any official court instance in order to point clearly fraudulent elections, as in the past as per today.

 

The Syrian refugees had the right to vote, but like I've explained, they were refused to go to vote in their embassies in Europe.

 

Again, the Syrian National Council is just a fabricated, non legitimate product of a fraction of Western countries. Not relevant, and will never be.

 

No official convictions to Assad or his government, means no point to blame. And Trump understood this quite fast, like in OP.

 

Case closed due to insufficient and inconsistent proof.

 

http://webtv.un.org/watch/bashar-ja’afari-syria-and-us-observers-on-the-syrian-presidential-elections-press-conference/3629865488001

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

 

The UN did make a statement for Syria not to hold an election.  Why would they condem it?  The world community did for sure.

 

The Syrian refugees inside Syria were also denied the right to vote.  By Assad.  No matter how you spin it, they were a sham. 

 

P.S. Trump's changing his tune on Syria.  We'll see how it pans out.  Again, no matter how you spin it, Assad's a mass murder and doesn't deserve to be head of a great nation like Syria.   He's ruined that country.

[Morch]

On 4/5/2017 at 6:08 PM, Thorgal said:

 

Again, I'm not a pro-Assad supporter or pro-Syrian government partisan.

 

Assad, in fact, has never been challenged in any official court case, for any official conviction of UN, ICC or any sovereign national court from any country in the world.

 

UN representative Del Ponte declared officially that Syrian Army didn't use chemical weapons in 2013 after official UN investigation. Samples taken were matching the chemical composition of Syrian batch, but used by the opposition. Hence, the confusion of many.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_International_Commission_of_Inquiry_on_the_Syrian_Arab_Republic

 

Again, no official condemnation.

 

Asking myself this question is more than normal after Trumps' decision to respect Syrian sovereignty as mentioned in OP.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

"UN representative Del Ponte declared officially that Syrian Army didn't use chemical weapons in 2013 after official UN investigation."

 

From the link you provided in your post:

 

Quote

On 6 May 2013, in an apparent reaction to Del Ponte’ comments the Commission issued a press release clarifying that it “has not reached conclusive findings as to the use of chemical weapons in Syria by any parties in the conflict”.

 

The Syrian regime was not cleared of suspicion.

 

 

 

[Thorgal]

  The Syrian regime was not cleared of suspicion.    

 

 

 

 

 Thanks for making my point. Indeed Assad has been accountable for many suspicions, but no condemnation with facts from any official judicial body from any court of any country or any international association. 

You might have been right if you would apply article 19 and 21 from the Nurnberg proces...

 

Article 19

The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and non-technical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value.

 

Article 21

The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various Allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and the records and findings of military or other Tribunals of any of the United Nations.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

 

[Morch]

26 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 Thanks for making my point. Indeed Assad has been accountable for many suspicions, but no condemnation with facts from any official judicial body from any court of any country or any international association. 

You might have been right if you would apply article 19 and 21 from the Nurnberg proces...

 

Article 19

The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and non-technical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value.

 

Article 21

The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various Allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and the records and findings of military or other Tribunals of any of the United Nations.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

 

 

Your point, inasmuch as you had one, was a lame attempt at misdirection. You claimed the UN cleared Assad's regime from related charges. That is not the case. Further obfuscation is no doubt forthcoming.

[craigt3365]

2 hours ago, Thorgal said:

 Thanks for making my point. Indeed Assad has been accountable for many suspicions, but no condemnation with facts from any official judicial body from any court of any country or any international association. 

You might have been right if you would apply article 19 and 21 from the Nurnberg proces...

 

Article 19

The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and non-technical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value.

 

Article 21

The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various Allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and the records and findings of military or other Tribunals of any of the United Nations.

 

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

Seriously?  Every major Western nation has condemned Assad.  And Russia.  For what's happening in Syria.  The UN is a toothless tiger. 

 

Are you defending Assad?