Outrage against Bashar al-Assad after nerve gas attack

[Gabbar Singh]

I'd have more respect for people if they just said we don't know...but seems when discussing this subject the burden of proof changes depending on who is being spoken about...

Eg - if it's an American 'alleged' crime...then the burden of proof is lower...for some simply quoting a pro Russian source is proof of American guilt...

Yet for Assad...everything pertaining to his possible crimes is propaganda...the fact that he has killed more civilians than anyone in this conflict is propaganda...UN and HRW reports on his use of nerve gas in 2013 is propaganda...in short no argument presented which goes against a predecided narrative will work...

Good point.

 

[Robert]

Actually he's a qualified doctor. He did his postgraduate studies at the Western Eye Hospital in London, specialising in ophthalmology.

Doctors can be sadists. Crippen, Mengele, Duvalier, Shipman.

Anyway I feel deeply worried. Trump’s behaviour is terrifying, so unpresidential. The risk of US and Russian sailors or pilots exchanging fire is too great.

The U.K. is going to get dragged into this. Parliament could vote military action down but Mrs May can push it through by Royal Prerogative.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Another WMD drama played out by the US and it's allies.

I know believe the nerve agent attack on the ex Russian spy was an inside job by the US. The UK will now have to use the RAF to attack Syria in support of the US.

UK needs a leader such as Corbyn who isn't a puppet.

 

[Yossarian]

Anyway I feel deeply worried. Trump’s behaviour is terrifying, so unpresidential. The risk of US and Russian sailors or pilots exchanging fire is too great.

The U.K. is going to get dragged into this. Parliament could vote military action down but Mrs May can push it through by Royal Prerogative.

It's only a couple of days since John Bolton started his new role, and with Mike Pompeo also on board (although not officially yet, but you can bet that he's already at Trump's side), don't be surprised if in targeting Assad's forces they also target Iranian forces and advisors in Syria, thereby forcing the Iranians to react,... and hey, there's then the excuse to attack Iran directly! The Saudi's have given their backing (more like encouraging) the USA to attack.

US and UK politicians are suggesting that the Russians sit back and do nothing whilst Assad's forces are attacked. This after Russia has spent over 2 years backing Assad, even sustaining Russian military casualties in the process. It's like helping your friend build his house, but then your main rival coming along and asking you to move aside whilst he and his friends knock it all down again.

If Russian military personnel sustain casualties in any numbers, or the US sustain any casualties, even one, due to Russian action, then it could easily spiral out of control ... and then where will it end?

 

[James]

Literally waiting for the missiles to rain down on Syria. Every hour I am checking the news with the expectation that it has happened.

This evening UK time offers a high probability in my opinion. It will be after dark in Syria. Right now the Trump / Macron love-in is just waiting for Theresa to finish her emergency meeting, so the old Allied Powers of the Great War can be renewed and reunited, almost exactly 100 years on - and they’ll be off.

One fundamental problem facing world leaders is that they are constantly under pressure to forge their own legacy and leave their own mark on history. In a world as broken as ours, this can only spell horror and destruction.

For the first time in my life I truly have the feeling that we are about to witness a pre-global conflict “smoking gun” (Frank Ferdinand, the invasion of Poland, etc) and I dread to think what happens next.

Even if a large-scale conflict did not go Nuclear, the incredible advancement and mass availability of conventional weaponry in every country of note would still have the potential to cause a minature Armageddon, or at least change the face of the Earth from a political point of view.

If you’ve had a long-standing Bucket List, I would start ticking things off quickly because there may not be much time left!

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

It's only a couple of days since John Bolton started his new role, and with Mike Pompeo also on board (although not officially yet, but you can bet that he's already at Trump's side), don't be surprised if in targeting Assad's forces they also target Iranian forces and advisors in Syria, thereby forcing the Iranians to react,... and hey, there's then the excuse to attack Iran directly! The Saudi's have given their backing (more like encouraging) the USA to attack.

US and UK politicians are suggesting that the Russians sit back and do nothing whilst Assad's forces are attacked. This after Russia has spent over 2 years backing Assad, even sustaining Russian military casualties in the process. It's like helping your friend build his house, but then your main rival coming along and asking you to move aside whilst he and his friends knock it all down again.

If Russian military personnel sustain casualties in any numbers, or the US sustain any casualties, even one, due to Russian action, then it could easily spiral out of control ... and then where will it end?

No idea where it will end, I don't follow world politics as closely as I used to, but what's happened over Syria in the last few years suggests this isn't some minor spat. All the world powers have been getting dragged in and aligned to one side or the other, even the ISIS nonsense can't be used as a cover any more.

 

[IMMY69]

Literally waiting for the missiles to rain down on Syria. Every hour I am checking the news with the expectation that it has happened.

This evening UK time offers a high probability in my opinion. It will be after dark in Syria. Right now the Trump / Macron love-in is just waiting for Theresa to finish her emergency meeting, so the old Allied Powers of the Great War can be renewed and reunited, almost exactly 100 years on - and they’ll be off.

One fundamental problem facing world leaders is that they are constantly under pressure to forge their own legacy and leave their own mark on history. In a world as broken as ours, this can only spell horror and destruction.

For the first time in my life I truly have the feeling that we are about to witness a pre-global conflict “smoking gun” (Frank Ferdinand, the invasion of Poland, etc) and I dread to think what happens next.

Even if a large-scale conflict did not go Nuclear, the incredible advancement and mass availability of conventional weaponry in every country of note would still have the potential to cause a minature Armageddon, or at least change the face of the Earth from a political point of view.

If you’ve had a long-standing Bucket List, I would start ticking things off quickly because there may not be much time left!

I actually think its got to do with Trump's popularity in the States and May's failings in the UK. A war, especially where the States are involved, evokes huge emotions for their people and they nearly always rally around the President.

A war would take Trump straight through to the next Elections.

Anyway, here comes Iraq MrkII only this time it involves Russia and Iran so yes I agree with your sentiment. I have just dusted down my list.

 

[Robert]

I know believe the nerve agent attack on the ex Russian spy was an inside job by the US. The UK will now have to use the RAF to attack Syria in support of the US.

You believe our staunchest ally, who sent millions of her sons to our defence in two world wars, committed a chemical attack on our soil.

You think chemically attacking us would persuade us to help the US attack a country.

Ok.

 

[KingKhanWC]

You believe our staunchest ally, who sent millions of her sons to our defence in two world wars, committed a chemical attack on our soil.

You think chemically attacking us would persuade us to help the US attack a country.

Ok.

We cant judge based on past emotions or the belief certain governments are the good guys. This is 2018 not 1920 or 1945.

Remember the WMD lie which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, nations destroyed and most ironically the US using chemical weapons which resulted in children being born with disabilities. You really think low life governments such as these, war criminals are the good guys? Wake up Robert and get with the times.


The simple facts are this..

1. NO evidence has emerged to suggest Russia was behind the attack in the UK.

2. The ex spy was visiting the Russian embassy, not as an enemy.

3. Russia does not have produce this substance but the US does.

4. UK previously voted against attacking Syria but will after this incident.

We have John Bolton as advisor to Trump, a warmonger and war criminal who wants more war.

I assume you would like the Uk to attack Syria?

 

[James]

You believe our staunchest ally, who sent millions of her sons to our defence in two world wars, committed a chemical attack on our soil.

You think chemically attacking us would persuade us to help the US attack a country.

Ok.

For the record I don’t think that the attempted Skripal assassination was arranged by the US.

However I don’t trust the US at all. They are essentially an isolationist country who only got involved in both of those aforementioned World Wars (as Johnny-Come-Latelys) partly because they came under threat after a few years, but mainly because it would benefit them economically. The FDR administration in particular played a blinder in guaranteeing a US global supremacy that conveniently commenced in 1945 after the division of Europe and the collapse of the British Empire, and has lasted to the present day.

One of the key policies that got Trump elected was promising a return to military isolationism - which was not much of a promise in the end obviously - but that America First mentality has always been there.

The US views its great allies Britain and France with similar contempt to its enemies to be honest, we just get away with it because we pander to them and say that we agree with them.

 

[barah_admi]

We cant judge based on past emotions or the belief certain governments are the good guys. This is 2018 not 1920 or 1945.

Remember the WMD lie which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, nations destroyed and most ironically the US using chemical weapons which resulted in children being born with disabilities. You really think low life governments such as these, war criminals are the good guys? Wake up Robert and get with the times.


The simple facts are this..

1. NO evidence has emerged to suggest Russia was behind the attack in the UK.

2. The ex spy was visiting the Russian embassy, not as an enemy.

3. Russia does not have produce this substance but the US does.

4. UK previously voted against attacking Syria but will after this incident.

We have John Bolton as advisor to Trump, a warmonger and war criminal who wants more war.

I assume you would like the Uk to attack Syria?

Great points!

But getting back to all these claims, which have gone on for years regarding Syria and its chemical attacks on its own people make no sense.

If one puts aside the emotive language, the photographs, the biased news paper articles and simply looks at the facts, we end up with Assad being a clear loser and only the West, i.e. the US and her allies being the people who benefit. For example, take the supposed attack last April, I think it was in a place called Khan Shakoun, it occurred on the even of a peace/ceasefire summit between Syria, Russia, the US and her puppets. Assad wanted the ceasefire yet the attack happens ,gets blamed on Syria and the US goes and bombs a couple more Syrian bases....what does Assad and Syria gain? Nothing.

To top it all off, every report I have read that blames that attack on the Syrian army, references the OPCW...yet if you visit the official OPCW bulletins on their website, they state clearly that they can only identify if a chemical attack as taken place, not who carried it out. So why is the OPCW continuously used as a source to ID Syria?

In fact, in that attack last year, the OPCW states they did not have anyone on the ground in Syria and had to carry out post mortems on bodies which had crossed the border into Lebanon...why did corpses cross the border into Lebanon in the first place?

After the most recent attack, Assad invited members of the OPCW into his own country to investigate it...why would the guilty party do that?

This is particularly for someone like [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] who seems to believe every western media story going.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Great points!

But getting back to all these claims, which have gone on for years regarding Syria and its chemical attacks on its own people make no sense.

If one puts aside the emotive language, the photographs, the biased news paper articles and simply looks at the facts, we end up with Assad being a clear loser and only the West, i.e. the US and her allies being the people who benefit. For example, take the supposed attack last April, I think it was in a place called Khan Shakoun, it occurred on the even of a peace/ceasefire summit between Syria, Russia, the US and her puppets. Assad wanted the ceasefire yet the attack happens ,gets blamed on Syria and the US goes and bombs a couple more Syrian bases....what does Assad and Syria gain? Nothing.

To top it all off, every report I have read that blames that attack on the Syrian army, references the OPCW...yet if you visit the official OPCW bulletins on their website, they state clearly that they can only identify if a chemical attack as taken place, not who carried it out. So why is the OPCW continuously used as a source to ID Syria?

In fact, in that attack last year, the OPCW states they did not have anyone on the ground in Syria and had to carry out post mortems on bodies which had crossed the border into Lebanon...why did corpses cross the border into Lebanon in the first place?

After the most recent attack, Assad invited members of the OPCW into his own country to investigate it...why would the guilty party do that?

This is particularly for someone like [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] who seems to believe every western media story going.

Spot on.

We also have to think why would Assad use chemical weapons on a town which he has pretty much taken back.

The US has been supplying arms to the so called rebels for years, if these people weren't their paid mercenaries they would be called terrorists.


Meanwhile the cabinet meeting has ended and I am assuming they have agreed (on the demands of the US) to launch strikes on Syria without consulting parliament. A sad day for British democracy.

 

[R3verse Swing]

You believe our staunchest ally, who sent millions of her sons to our defence in two world wars, committed a chemical attack on our soil.

You think chemically attacking us would persuade us to help the US attack a country.

Ok.

Dude, tell me something.

Weapons are used on innocent people around the world every week, but why it is the West feel they must respond to a chemical attack? Why is a Chemical weapon worse than other weapons? Why doesn't the West intervene in say Yemen? Also, seeing as Chemical weapons are banned by certain conventions, why does the West continue to produce Chemical weapons?

Also it is a historical fact USA did not want anything to do with WW1 and WW2. If it wasn't for say Pearl Harbour, USA would not have joined WW2. This is a fact.

 

[barah_admi]

Spot on.

We also have to think why would Assad use chemical weapons on a town which he has pretty much taken back.

The US has been supplying arms to the so called rebels for years, if these people weren't their paid mercenaries they would be called terrorists.


Meanwhile the cabinet meeting has ended and I am assuming they have agreed (on the demands of the US) to launch strikes on Syria without consulting parliament. A sad day for British democracy.

British democracy? What is that? I can't remember.

 

[Robert]

We cant judge based on past emotions or the belief certain governments are the good guys. This is 2018 not 1920 or 1945.

Remember the WMD lie which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, nations destroyed and most ironically the US using chemical weapons which resulted in children being born with disabilities. You really think low life governments such as these, war criminals are the good guys? Wake up Robert and get with the times.


The simple facts are this..

1. NO evidence has emerged to suggest Russia was behind the attack in the UK.

2. The ex spy was visiting the Russian embassy, not as an enemy.

3. Russia does not have produce this substance but the US does.

4. UK previously voted against attacking Syria but will after this incident.

We have John Bolton as advisor to Trump, a warmonger and war criminal who wants more war.

I assume you would like the Uk to attack Syria?

You seem to equate ‘waking up’ with uncritically believing every conspiracy theory going.

I apply Occam’s Razor.

And yes, I trust my government more than I trust that if Russia. We have free and fair elections and press freedom. They have rigged elections and hundreds of murdered journalists.

As for your final question, I refer you to my first post on this thread.

 

[KingKhanWC]

You seem to equate ‘waking up’ with uncritically believing every conspiracy theory going.

I apply Occam’s Razor.

And yes, I trust my government more than I trust that if Russia. We have free and fair elections and press freedom. They have rigged elections and hundreds of murdered journalists.

As for your final question, I refer you to my first post on this thread.

I have provided a number of points/facts while you merely believe your government.

Am I right you still stand by the decision to attack Iraq?

 

[Robert]

Dude, tell me something.

Weapons are used on innocent people around the world every week, but why it is the West feel they must respond to a chemical attack? Why is a Chemical weapon worse than other weapons? Why doesn't the West intervene in say Yemen? Also, seeing as Chemical weapons are banned by certain conventions, why does the West continue to produce Chemical weapons?

Also it is a historical fact USA did not want anything to do with WW1 and WW2. If it wasn't for say Pearl Harbour, USA would not have joined WW2. This is a fact.

1. Breach of the chemical weapons convention.
2. This dates from WW1. Chemical weapons are indiscriminate and can poison an area for decades. Shells and bombs are more specific.
3. That region is not sufficiently destabilised to warrant BATO attention, at a guess.
4. There are no chemical weapons in HM Armed Forces’ arsenal. Which countries do you refer to?

And yet another fact is that the USA liberated Europe from totalitarianism, thereby allowing us to have this conversation without the Gestapo or the KGB disappearing us and our families to an extermination camp or Gulag.

 

[R3verse Swing]

1. Breach of the chemical weapons convention.
2. This dates from WW1. Chemical weapons are indiscriminate and can poison an area for decades. Shells and bombs are more specific.
3. That region is not sufficiently destabilised to warrant BATO attention, at a guess.
4. There are no chemical weapons in HM Armed Forces’ arsenal. Which countries do you refer to?

And yet another fact is that the USA liberated Europe from totalitarianism, thereby allowing us to have this conversation without the Gestapo or the KGB disappearing us and our families to an extermination camp or Gulag.

So the West intervene because chemical weapons can poison an area for decades? (Weapons in general are indiscriminate, like Nuclear and MOAB).

The point I was making about WW2 is that the USA did not come to help the UK because they are a staunch ally, they joined WW2 to safe guard their own interests.

 

[Robert]

I have provided a number of points/facts while you merely believe your government.

Am I right you still stand by the decision to attack Iraq?

Your points don’t mean anything in themselves. You conspiracy theorists look at a thousand piece jigsaw of a hippo where there are a few pieces missing, and tell yourself it is a penguin because you like penguins more than hippos.

I suspect you swallowed the RT line - who are desperate to sow as much doubt as they can because Putin has been found out and now 24 Western democracies are backing up the British government.

I have stated many times that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was the wrong choice and that I would have pursued the Clinton Doctrine of containment of Saddam instead.

 

[R3verse Swing]

This government and the US has known about Syrian chemical weapons and their use for years. Why now?@Robert

 

[R3verse Swing]

Your points don’t mean anything in themselves. You conspiracy theorists look at a thousand piece jigsaw of a hippo where there are a few pieces missing, and tell yourself it is a penguin because you like penguins more than hippos.

I suspect you swallowed the RT line - who are desperate to sow as much doubt as they can because Putin has been found out and now 24 Western democracies are backing up the British government.

I have stated many times that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was the wrong choice and that I would have pursued the Clinton Doctrine of containment of Saddam instead.

Do you know why Iraq 2003 was wrong? Because it was a lie, and the evidence was fabricated at best.

Where is the evidence now? Forget RT. Why is it when people demand evidence given 2003, they are labelled a conspiracy theorist? Why do you not demand evidence from the government given 2003 was wrong? You trust them like you did in 2003? Do you understand what is at risk here? Attack without evidence, and UK is toast, chemicals will be dropping in the UK and the USA will not help, and neither the other 20 or so democracies backing up Britain right now.

 

[Robert]

So the West intervene because chemical weapons can poison an area for decades? (Weapons in general are indiscriminate, like Nuclear and MOAB).

The point I was making about WW2 is that the USA did not come to help the UK because they are a staunch ally, they joined WW2 to safe guard their own interests.

Because of the CWC. Though clearly NATO does not enforce it all the time - see 2013 where Obama drew a red line and did nothing when Assad crossed it.

Nuclear weapons have not been deployed since 1945 and MOABs don’t poison the soil or air.

The USA is not an homogenous entity. There are isolationists and there are those who wish to spread liberal democracy if they can get Congress to agree and FDR, bless him, was the latter.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Your points don’t mean anything in themselves. You conspiracy theorists look at a thousand piece jigsaw of a hippo where there are a few pieces missing, and tell yourself it is a penguin because you like penguins more than hippos.

I suspect you swallowed the RT line - who are desperate to sow as much doubt as they can because Putin has been found out and now 24 Western democracies are backing up the British government.

I have stated many times that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was the wrong choice and that I would have pursued the Clinton Doctrine of containment of Saddam instead.

I haven't watched RT for months. I go by what is available. Let me show you.

UK experts cannot prove novichok nerve agent used on Skripals came from Russia, MoD says

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-down-proof-evidence-mod-latest-a8286761.html

If there is NO proof Russia was behind this then why target them? Do we know live in a world where assumptions can lead to conflict?

I have no proof the Americans were behind this but neither has the government Russia is at fault.

As for Syria, as far as I know no Syrian has ever attacked the UK, just as no Iraqi had attacked the UK before 2003.

The government is going to be spending around £1 million for each attack on Syria, yet they make cuts in hospitals and other services. People are being taken for ride.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Because of the CWC. Though clearly NATO does not enforce it all the time - see 2013 where Obama drew a red line and did nothing when Assad crossed it.

Nuclear weapons have not been deployed since 1945 and MOABs don’t poison the soil or air.

The USA is not an homogenous entity. There are isolationists and there are those who wish to spread liberal democracy if they can get Congress to agree and FDR, bless him, was the latter.

MOABs kill indiscriminately. The point you seem to be making is that land becomes poison. Go ask the Japanese, they are still paying the price for 1945 nuke, but the West is still producing them.

Anyway, I think you are pretty naive if you believe the USA cares about the UK, even now with Syria. They have their own interests.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Because of the CWC. Though clearly NATO does not enforce it all the time - see 2013 where Obama drew a red line and did nothing when Assad crossed it.

But when USA crosses the line it's ok! Libya, Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan to name but a few.

 

[Robert]

Do you know why Iraq 2003 was wrong? Because it was a lie, and the evidence was fabricated at best.

Where is the evidence now? Forget RT. Why is it when people demand evidence given 2003, they are labelled a conspiracy theorist? Why do you not demand evidence from the government given 2003 was wrong? You trust them like you did in 2003? Do you understand what is at risk here? Attack without evidence, and UK is toast, chemicals will be dropping in the UK and the USA will not help, and neither the other 20 or so democracies backing up Britain right now.

I think it was wrong because the Bush and Blair didn’t understand Iraq and held the naive belief that it would default to democracy as soon as the dictator was toppled.

I have already stated further up that I do not want the UK to attack Syria due to the risk of escalation with Russia. I wrote to Sir Vince Cable today urging him to do what he could in Parliament to prevent an attack, as all 53 Lib Dems did in 2003 when they voted against invasion. But he won’t get a vote as Mrs May applies Royal Prerogative.

 

[R3verse Swing]

I haven't watched RT for months. I go by what is available. Let me show you.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-down-proof-evidence-mod-latest-a8286761.html

If there is NO proof Russia was behind this then why target them? Do we know live in a world where assumptions can lead to conflict?

I have no proof the Americans were behind this but neither has the government Russia is at fault.

As for Syria, as far as I know no Syrian has ever attacked the UK, just as no Iraqi had attacked the UK before 2003.

The government is going to be spending around £1 million for each attack on Syria, yet they make cuts in hospitals and other services. People are being taken for ride.

But when a Syrian or Iraqi will attack on UK soil to avenge the actions of UK, then people will blame it on Islamic terrorism, while USA sit cosy on the other side of the world.

The poisoning of the Russian spy is a false flag (until evidence is produced to the contrary), and given that Israeli jets can simply attack Syrian targets, I think we know who is the winner here - through deception.

 

[R3verse Swing]

I think it was wrong because the Bush and Blair didn’t understand Iraq and held the naive belief that it would default to democracy as soon as the dictator was toppled.

I have already stated further up that I do not want the UK to attack Syria due to the risk of escalation with Russia. I wrote to Sir Vince Cable today urging him to do what he could in Parliament to prevent an attack, as all 53 Lib Dems did in 2003 when they voted against invasion. But he won’t get a vote as Mrs May applies Royal Prerogative.

Dude, the point here is of evidence. Are you suggesting it's ok for the UK to attack devoid of evidence as long as the situation doesn't escalate in the UK?

The fact that May will bypass parliament is also telling! I thought we lived in a democracy, not a dictatorship! Funny isn't, when is comes to things like Brexit, PM has no absolute power, needs a vote, but when it comes to war, she can reign hellfire without the votes.

 

[R3verse Swing]

80-88 Iraq / Iranian war America supplied Saddam with tons of nerve agent used to kill thousands of Iranians, the West sat back and said nothing. In the 70's America dropped hundreds of napalm bombs on Vietnam incinerating innocent people, including children, to death. We appear to have selective memories, slewed moral judgement and an attraction for hypocrisy.

So I ask again, WHY NOW?

 

[KingKhanWC]

But when a Syrian or Iraqi will attack on UK soil to avenge the actions of UK, then people will blame it on Islamic terrorism, while USA sit cosy on the other side of the world.

The poisoning of the Russian spy is a false flag (until evidence is produced to the contrary), and given that Israeli jets can simply attack Syrian targets, I think we know who is the winner here - through deception.

We still have people who actually believe their governments have total control of their foreign policy. It's no surprise the nations around Israel are being destroyed for its protection and nations such as the UK and US are controlled by Zionism, actually let me re-phrase they are owned by Zionism.

Yep if a Syrian whose seen babies being bombed was to attack the UK in the future, they will not blame this on foriegn policy but religious extremism which is very ironic because they are bombing in support of a nation who believe they are God's chosen people. You simply couldn't make this up.

 

[Robert]

MOABs kill indiscriminately. The point you seem to be making is that land becomes poison. Go ask the Japanese, they are still paying the price for 1945 nuke, but the West is still producing them.

Anyway, I think you are pretty naive if you believe the USA cares about the UK, even now with Syria. They have their own interests.

I am trying to explain the historical perspective on why chemical weapons are considered different to high explosive weapons by the nations which signed the CWC.

Actually the incidence of cancer did not rise in Hiroshima and Nagasaki because those weapons were air bursts, and they are thriving cities again. Chernobyl and Fukushima did far more environmental damage.

Trump is not FDR.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Chemical Weapons Convention : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention

Guess which country has sign but not ratifed the convention? You guessed it, Israel.

Get this, Fourteen States Parties have declared chemical weapons production facilities:[11]

Bosnia and Herzegovina
China
France
India
Iran
Iraq
Japan
Libya
Russia
Serbia
Syria
United Kingdom
United States

You could not make this up!

 

[R3verse Swing]

I am trying to explain the historical perspective on why chemical weapons are considered different to high explosive weapons by the nations which signed the CWC.

Actually the incidence of cancer did not rise in Hiroshima and Nagasaki because those weapons were air bursts, and they are thriving cities again. Chernobyl and Fukushima did far more environmental damage.

Trump is not FDR.

Chernobyl was a nuclear power plant. I only point this out because the regional damage done by Nuclear power plants is in the same league as chemical weapons.

Anyway, CWC is a joke and should be flushed down the toilet. USA, UK, and France (leading the impending attack from NATO) all produce chemical weapons yet have signed CWC. Typical, who'd have thought it?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Chemical Weapons Convention : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention

Guess which country has sign but not ratifed the convention? You guessed it, Israel.

Get this, Fourteen States Parties have declared chemical weapons production facilities:[11]

Bosnia and Herzegovina
China
France
India
Iran
Iraq
Japan
Libya
Russia
Serbia
Syria
United Kingdom
United States

You could not make this up!

Interestingly the UK plant Porton Down is only 15 mins drive from Salisbury, a coincidence of course.

 

[Robert]

Dude, the point here is of evidence. Are you suggesting it's ok for the UK to attack devoid of evidence as long as the situation doesn't escalate in the UK?

The fact that May will bypass parliament is also telling! I thought we lived in a democracy, not a dictatorship! Funny isn't, when is comes to things like Brexit, PM has no absolute power, needs a vote, but when it comes to war, she can reign hellfire without the votes.

I would say that all signatories to the CWC have a moral imperative to prevent Assad from using chemical weapons on his own people. I think there is sufficient evidence for such a move as there was in 2013.

But I wouldn’t do it. Best case: the RAF and RN crater a few runways. We feel better because we ‘did something’. But really we just prolong a civil war with no good guys. Damn me for saying this, but let Assad end up king of the ruins. Worst case: armed confrontation with Russia. Every option is lose-lose.

 

[Robert]

Chernobyl was a nuclear power plant. I only point this out because the regional damage done by Nuclear power plants is in the same league as chemical weapons.

Anyway, CWC is a joke and should be flushed down the toilet. USA, UK, and France (leading the impending attack from NATO) all produce chemical weapons yet have signed CWC. Typical, who'd have thought it?

The UK has no chemical weapons. All were scrapped in the 1950s. Unless you count the DU penetrators in some tank shells as chemical weapons.

Do you refer to Porton Down? I think you may mean Defence CBRN next door, which is a training centre for soldiers and medics who may face chemical, radiological and biological weapons on the battlefield.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Interestingly the UK plant Porton Down is only 15 mins drive from Salisbury, a coincidence of course.

100% coincidence.

 

[R3verse Swing]

The UK has no chemical weapons. All were scrapped in the 1950s. Unless you count the DU penetrators in some tank shells as chemical weapons.

Do you refer to Porton Down? I think you may mean Defence CBRN next door, which is a training centre for soldiers and medics who may face chemical, radiological and biological weapons on the battlefield.

Chemical Weapons Production Facilities (CWPFs) include UK as per CWC.

The point is UK still produces chemical weapons. What it does with them is another story. I am guessing you think for training?

 

[R3verse Swing]

I would say that all signatories to the CWC have a moral imperative to prevent Assad from using chemical weapons on his own people. I think there is sufficient evidence for such a move as there was in 2013.

Why didn't the West do anything when Israel used chemical weapons (White-Phosphorus) on Gaza? Where was the moral obligation and imperative then?

https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/03/25/israel-white-phosphorus-use-evidence-war-crimes

Israel at first denied it was using white phosphorus in Gaza but, facing mounting evidence to the contrary, said that it was using all weapons in compliance with international law. ... Infection is common and the body's absorption of the chemical can cause serious damage to internal organs, as well as death.

 

[James]

We are no better than anybody else. Look up the case of poor Ronald Maddison, a young chap who was promised 15 shillings by the MoD if he agreed to stand in a a gas chamber and be exposed to sarin as a test subject. He died a horrible death of course and it took over 50 years for the Government to admit the truth to his family. The 15 shillings in addition to a much larger lump of compensation were then at last paid.

British national servicemen were picked up in the 50s as cooks, painters and handymen, then sent to Bikini Atoll on an exciting island adventure - where they were then asked to sit on the beach with their bare backs to the sea as atomic bombs were exploded several miles away. We did this to measure the short and long-term health effects of the extreme heat and immediate radioactive fallout resultant from the detonation of nuclear weapons. My wife’s grandfather was one of these test subjects. Him and his old squadmates still suffer from various afflictions to this day - glaucoma, respiratory diseases, cancers, reduced fertility, the passing on of minor birth defects (four toes, missing earlobes etc). He has sent a talking head DVD testimony about this unofficial story to the Imperial War Museum in London. It hasn’t been put forward as an exhibit yet.

Point is, we have many times proven to be just as unscrupulous as the likes of Russia, and before we get ourselves embroiled in another mass skirmish which will result in hundreds more British men and women being air-couriered back to RAF bases in wooden boxes, we need to know what the evidence is and if it justifies military intervention.

We have already been taken for a ride by one ingenious trickster and his pals in 2003. They are now all living stinking rich and comfortable private lives while the Middle East continues to implode further by the week. They should be living in cells underneath The Hague and answering awkward questions in front of a camera from Monday to Friday, but to date they have all remained clever and well-connected enough to avoid this outcome. Yes the Chilcot Report has ruined their reputations and soiled their respective legacies, but so what? They have gotten off very lightly given the ever-increasing number of deaths on their collective conscience.

YouGov currently records barely 1 out of 5 Brits as supporting a cruise missile attack against Syria. That’s 78% of people who are either unsure or don’t want it. Most of the British people are smart to this intermittent political warmongering now.

Before we do anything else, we need a thorough and transparent investigation followed by a formal parliamentary vote. And that’s as an absolute minimum.

 

[Robert]

Why didn't the West do anything when Israel used chemical weapons (White-Phosphorus) on Gaza? Where was the moral obligation and imperative then?

https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/03/25/israel-white-phosphorus-use-evidence-war-crimes

White phos isn’t classed as a chemical weapon, it’s an incendiary. British infantrymen have it in hand grenades and tracer bullets.

 

[Robert]

Interestingly the UK plant Porton Down is only 15 mins drive from Salisbury, a coincidence of course.

Yes. You confuse coincidence with causation, a typical thinking process of the conspiracy theorist. There is a piece of the hippo jigsaw missing, so you think the hippo is a penguin not because you are interested in solving the puzzle but because you want it to be a penguin.

 

[Varun]

India and Pakistan may have their fair share of problems, but we should at least be thankful that we aren't the battleground for global superpowers to exert their dominance by pillage and plunder like has happened in Syria.

 

[IMMY69]

Yes. You confuse coincidence with causation, a typical thinking process of the conspiracy theorist. There is a piece of the hippo jigsaw missing, so you think the hippo is a penguin not because you are interested in solving the puzzle but because you want it to be a penguin.

There is a fine line between a conspiracy theorist and one who reaches the same conclusion but by trying to use logic. Do I make any sense?

I’m not conspiracy theorist but I can’t ignore what happened in Afghanistan, Iraq, Gaza...

 

[Robert]

There is a fine line between a conspiracy theorist and one who reaches the same conclusion but by trying to use logic. Do I make any sense?

I’m not conspiracy theorist but I can’t ignore what happened in Afghanistan, Iraq, Gaza...

Just because we were misled regarding Iraq in 2003 does not mean that we are being misled this time.

I would like to know what people would consider to be proof that Assad deployed chemical weapons. A UN investigation, perhaps?

It will be vetoed by Russia at the UNSC, just as the last six motions for investigation were vetoed by Russia. What is Russia’s motive for vetoing investigation six times, I wonder?

 

[Yossarian]

We are no better than anybody else. Look up the case of poor Ronald Maddison, a young chap who was promised 15 shillings by the MoD if he agreed to stand in a a gas chamber and be exposed to sarin as a test subject. He died a horrible death of course and it took over 50 years for the Government to admit the truth to his family. The 15 shillings in addition to a much larger lump of compensation were then at last paid.

British national servicemen were picked up in the 50s as cooks, painters and handymen, then sent to Bikini Atoll on an exciting island adventure - where they were then asked to sit on the beach with their bare backs to the sea as atomic bombs were exploded several miles away. We did this to measure the short and long-term health effects of the extreme heat and immediate radioactive fallout resultant from the detonation of nuclear weapons. My wife’s grandfather was one of these test subjects. Him and his old squadmates still suffer from various afflictions to this day - glaucoma, respiratory diseases, cancers, reduced fertility, the passing on of minor birth defects (four toes, missing earlobes etc). He has sent a talking head DVD testimony about this unofficial story to the Imperial War Museum in London. It hasn’t been put forward as an exhibit yet.

Point is, we have many times proven to be just as unscrupulous as the likes of Russia, and before we get ourselves embroiled in another mass skirmish which will result in hundreds more British men and women being air-couriered back to RAF bases in wooden boxes, we need to know what the evidence is and if it justifies military intervention.

We have already been taken for a ride by one ingenious trickster and his pals in 2003. They are now all living stinking rich and comfortable private lives while the Middle East continues to implode further by the week. They should be living in cells underneath The Hague and answering awkward questions in front of a camera from Monday to Friday, but to date they have all remained clever and well-connected enough to avoid this outcome. Yes the Chilcot Report has ruined their reputations and soiled their respective legacies, but so what? They have gotten off very lightly given the ever-increasing number of deaths on their collective conscience.

YouGov currently records barely 1 out of 5 Brits as supporting a cruise missile attack against Syria. That’s 78% of people who are either unsure or don’t want it. Most of the British people are smart to this intermittent political warmongering now.

Before we do anything else, we need a thorough and transparent investigation followed by a formal parliamentary vote. And that’s as an absolute minimum.

Well said.

 

[Yossarian]

Just because we were misled regarding Iraq in 2003 does not mean that we are being misled this time.

I would like to know what people would consider to be proof that Assad deployed chemical weapons. A UN investigation, perhaps?

It will be vetoed by Russia at the UNSC, just as the last six motions for investigation were vetoed by Russia. What is Russia’s motive for vetoing investigation six times, I wonder?

Presumably you are in favour of bombing Assad's regime? If so what are the dangers and what will it achieve?

Here's some questions that should be considered before any bombing takes place:

1. Can it be 100% ruled out that the chemical weapons were not deployed by those fighting Assad's regime in order to blame Assad and get the West to bomb Assad's regime?

2. Why should the Russians step aside and let the Americans and their allies bomb Assad's forces, the very forces that Russia has spent over 2 years supporting with air power, warships and ground troops, costing billions, and including even taking casualties in providing that support? As I said earlier, it's the equivalent of someone helping a friend to build a house and then being asked to stand aside by his main rival, so that he and his friends could knock it down again.

3. What happens if the Russians take casualties, and they then retaliate?

4. What happens after the bombing is over? What will have been achieved?

5. And lastly, if the if the objective is to remove Assad and his regime, and that does happen, who takes over? Are the alternatives (some of which are jihadi groups backed by various nations including Saudi Arabia) likely to be any better, or even worse?

Why are those in favour of bombing not asking these questions? These same questions were not asked by the pro-bombing Iraq warmongers, and look at the result, with many millions dead, wounded, maimed or starving, and the whole region in an even worse quagmire.

 

[James]

Just because we were misled regarding Iraq in 2003 does not mean that we are being misled this time.

I would like to know what people would consider to be proof that Assad deployed chemical weapons. A UN investigation, perhaps?

It will be vetoed by Russia at the UNSC, just as the last six motions for investigation were vetoed by Russia. What is Russia’s motive for vetoing investigation six times, I wonder?

I would like to see a full and rapid UN investigation, extensive interviews and intelligence gathering on the ground, and a careful judgment made on the available evidence and balance of probabilities. Then follow that with a parliamentary vote.

A video recorded in a basement by random people with an iPhone is not a good enough reason to launch cruise missiles and destroy what remains of a country, possibly also planning to invade and long-term-occupy it afterwards in order to install a new government, and potentially ending up in a mass conflict against: armed-to-the-teeth with nuclear weapons and other WMDs Russia, armed with goodness-knows-what Iran, and splinter groups loyal to the Assad government who will have ready access to anything they want.

Yes a coalition of the US, France, Britain, anyone else who fancies joining in, and presumably in the end Saudi Arabia and Israel too (yes, on the same side) would probably “win” such a conflict - but who would really be a winner? And at what human, political, financial and environmental cost?

 

[Robert]

I would like to see a full and rapid UN investigation, extensive interviews and intelligence gathering on the ground, and a careful judgment made on the available evidence and balance of probabilities. Then follow that with a parliamentary vote.

A video recorded in a basement by random people with an iPhone is not a good enough reason to launch cruise missiles and destroy what remains of a country, possibly also planning to invade and long-term-occupy it afterwards in order to install a new government, and potentially ending up in a mass conflict against: armed-to-the-teeth with nuclear weapons and other WMDs Russia, armed with goodness-knows-what Iran, and splinter groups loyal to the Assad government who will have ready access to anything they want.

Yes a coalition of the US, France, Britain, anyone else who fancies joining in, and presumably in the end Saudi Arabia and Israel too (yes, on the same side) would probably “win” such a conflict - but who would really be a winner? And at what human, political, financial and environmental cost?

There won’t be a UN investigation for the reason I have given.

 

[Robert]

Presumably you are in favour of bombing Assad's regime?

I don’t understand why you can presume that. Once again, I refer you to post #82 and successive posts where I have repeatedly stated that I am not in favour and have written to my party leader to say so.

Assad is heinous but all outcomes to bombing him are bad.

 

[Markhor]

How's the notion that Trump would be a non-interventionist working out ?

Appointing hawk after hawk into his administration, threatening to rain down missiles on Syria and potentially get embroiled in a conflict with Russian forces stationed there.

This is the same guy who denounced Obama for threatening air strikes in 2013 against Assad's forces. A brazen hypocrite whose lack of integrity knows no limits.

Meanwhile we have poodle Theresa May trailing Trump's rear desperately wanting to prove the Empire still lives after the national suicide mission she oversees known as a Hard Brexit which will diminish British global influence.

Let's allow the UN inspectors in as [MENTION=1842]James[/MENTION] says and get the facts straight. I'd prefer to disarm Assad's chemical weapons peacefully without destroying whatever little infrastructure that poor country has left and causing even more bloodshed.

That's not to apologise for Assad. The UN has confirmed he is responsible for the lion's share of civilian deaths. His forces have acted barbarically in this war but so have the opposition whose most effective fighting forces are religious fundamentalists who will cause greater chaos in the region.

 

[R3verse Swing]

We are no better than anybody else. Look up the case of poor Ronald Maddison, a young chap who was promised 15 shillings by the MoD if he agreed to stand in a a gas chamber and be exposed to sarin as a test subject. He died a horrible death of course and it took over 50 years for the Government to admit the truth to his family. The 15 shillings in addition to a much larger lump of compensation were then at last paid.

British national servicemen were picked up in the 50s as cooks, painters and handymen, then sent to Bikini Atoll on an exciting island adventure - where they were then asked to sit on the beach with their bare backs to the sea as atomic bombs were exploded several miles away. We did this to measure the short and long-term health effects of the extreme heat and immediate radioactive fallout resultant from the detonation of nuclear weapons. My wife’s grandfather was one of these test subjects. Him and his old squadmates still suffer from various afflictions to this day - glaucoma, respiratory diseases, cancers, reduced fertility, the passing on of minor birth defects (four toes, missing earlobes etc). He has sent a talking head DVD testimony about this unofficial story to the Imperial War Museum in London. It hasn’t been put forward as an exhibit yet.

Point is, we have many times proven to be just as unscrupulous as the likes of Russia, and before we get ourselves embroiled in another mass skirmish which will result in hundreds more British men and women being air-couriered back to RAF bases in wooden boxes, we need to know what the evidence is and if it justifies military intervention.

We have already been taken for a ride by one ingenious trickster and his pals in 2003. They are now all living stinking rich and comfortable private lives while the Middle East continues to implode further by the week. They should be living in cells underneath The Hague and answering awkward questions in front of a camera from Monday to Friday, but to date they have all remained clever and well-connected enough to avoid this outcome. Yes the Chilcot Report has ruined their reputations and soiled their respective legacies, but so what? They have gotten off very lightly given the ever-increasing number of deaths on their collective conscience.

YouGov currently records barely 1 out of 5 Brits as supporting a cruise missile attack against Syria. That’s 78% of people who are either unsure or don’t want it. Most of the British people are smart to this intermittent political warmongering now.

Before we do anything else, we need a thorough and transparent investigation followed by a formal parliamentary vote. And that’s as an absolute minimum.

Great post.

 

[IMMY69]

How's the notion that Trump would be a non-interventionist working out ?

Appointing hawk after hawk into his administration, threatening to rain down missiles on Syria and potentially get embroiled in a conflict with Russian forces stationed there.

This is the same guy who denounced Obama for threatening air strikes in 2013 against Assad's forces. A brazen hypocrite whose lack of integrity knows no limits.

Meanwhile we have poodle Theresa May trailing Trump's rear desperately wanting to prove the Empire still lives after the national suicide mission she oversees known as a Hard Brexit which will diminish British global influence.

Let's allow the UN inspectors in as [MENTION=1842]James[/MENTION] says and get the facts straight. I'd prefer to disarm Assad's chemical weapons peacefully without destroying whatever little infrastructure that poor country has left and causing even more bloodshed.

That's not to apologise for Assad. The UN has confirmed he is responsible for the lion's share of civilian deaths. His forces have acted barbarically in this war but so have the opposition whose most effective fighting forces are religious fundamentalists who will cause greater chaos in the region.

Didn't he say that Obama and Hillary create ISIS?
The vacuum left behind in Iraq after Obama pulled out the military...

Now he's talking about bombing Syria, so what will happen once Asad is removed?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Didn't he say that Obama and Hillary create ISIS?
The vacuum left behind in Iraq after Obama pulled out the military...

Now he's talking about bombing Syria, so what will happen once Asad is removed?

He won't be removed any more than he was removed last time is my guess. This would be a missile strike to give him a bloody nose is my guess. It could be more of a message to Russia rather than Assad, that USA under Trump won't give up their interests in the region that easily. It's an expensive business to carry out these messages, but you would imagine arms sales to proxy armies would cover some of it.

 

[IMMY69]

He won't be removed any more than he was removed last time is my guess. This would be a missile strike to give him a bloody nose is my guess. It could be more of a message to Russia rather than Assad, that USA under Trump won't give up their interests in the region that easily. It's an expensive business to carry out these messages, but you would imagine arms sales to proxy armies would cover some of it.

They did a missile strike last April. I doubt there would be so much hoopla this time around for another Air Strike unless it was going to be much a bigger effort. Anyway, time will tell.

 

[IMMY69]

^^^
Even just bombing Asad's faciities will leave him weakened. So, and without troops on the ground, a vacuum will be created anyway which ISIS will thrive in.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

^^^
Even just bombing Asad's faciities will leave him weakened. So, and without troops on the ground, a vacuum will be created anyway which ISIS will thrive in.

ISIS aren't really a problem, they will have been severely depleted over the last few years, as far as US/UK is concerned, if they start gaining a bit of ground back again, it won't really matter for now. All of the groups fighting in Syria are fundos of some description, it's not the worst tactic to back one side then the other just to keep them busy for now. Assad's not going anywhere without major military intervention, which I certainly can't see the west indulging in if it means going up against Iran and Russia. A few air strikes here and there should send the message without getting in too deep.

 

[IMMY69]

ISIS aren't really a problem, they will have been severely depleted over the last few years, as far as US/UK is concerned, if they start gaining a bit of ground back again, it won't really matter for now. All of the groups fighting in Syria are fundos of some description, it's not the worst tactic to back one side then the other just to keep them busy for now. Assad's not going anywhere without major military intervention, which I certainly can't see the west indulging in if it means going up against Iran and Russia. A few air strikes here and there should send the message without getting in too deep.

Trump likes to troll everyone. Nothing is gonna happen.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Just because we were misled regarding Iraq in 2003 does not mean that we are being misled this time.

I would like to know what people would consider to be proof that Assad deployed chemical weapons. A UN investigation, perhaps?

It will be vetoed by Russia at the UNSC, just as the last six motions for investigation were vetoed by Russia. What is Russia’s motive for vetoing investigation six times, I wonder?

It also doesn't mean they are telling the truth either.

Surely the lesson learned from 2003 is to present the evidence, but you dismissed this by claiming that politics is not a criminal court of law.

 

[JaDed]

How easy for Brits to say we were mislead and invaded a country like oops?

 

[Abdullah719]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The Russian military says the alleged chemical attack in Syria was "staged and directed by Britain"</p>— Sky News Breaking (@SkyNewsBreak) <a href="https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/984808537451884545?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 13, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Robert]

We are no better than anybody else. Look up the case of poor Ronald Maddison, a young chap who was promised 15 shillings by the MoD if he agreed to stand in a a gas chamber and be exposed to sarin as a test subject. He died a horrible death of course and it took over 50 years for the Government to admit the truth to his family. The 15 shillings in addition to a much larger lump of compensation were then at last paid.

British national servicemen were picked up in the 50s as cooks, painters and handymen, then sent to Bikini Atoll on an exciting island adventure - where they were then asked to sit on the beach with their bare backs to the sea as atomic bombs were exploded several miles away. We did this to measure the short and long-term health effects of the extreme heat and immediate radioactive fallout resultant from the detonation of nuclear weapons. My wife’s grandfather was one of these test subjects. Him and his old squadmates still suffer from various afflictions to this day - glaucoma, respiratory diseases, cancers, reduced fertility, the passing on of minor birth defects (four toes, missing earlobes etc). He has sent a talking head DVD testimony about this unofficial story to the Imperial War Museum in London. It hasn’t been put forward as an exhibit yet.

Point is, we have many times proven to be just as unscrupulous as the likes of Russia, and before we get ourselves embroiled in another mass skirmish which will result in hundreds more British men and women being air-couriered back to RAF bases in wooden boxes, we need to know what the evidence is and if it justifies military intervention.

We have already been taken for a ride by one ingenious trickster and his pals in 2003. They are now all living stinking rich and comfortable private lives while the Middle East continues to implode further by the week. They should be living in cells underneath The Hague and answering awkward questions in front of a camera from Monday to Friday, but to date they have all remained clever and well-connected enough to avoid this outcome. Yes the Chilcot Report has ruined their reputations and soiled their respective legacies, but so what? They have gotten off very lightly given the ever-increasing number of deaths on their collective conscience.

YouGov currently records barely 1 out of 5 Brits as supporting a cruise missile attack against Syria. That’s 78% of people who are either unsure or don’t want it. Most of the British people are smart to this intermittent political warmongering now.

Before we do anything else, we need a thorough and transparent investigation followed by a formal parliamentary vote. And that’s as an absolute minimum.

You seem to be saying here that because our forefathers detonated atomic weapons and used nerve agents in the 1960s - a more brutal time where they had just emerged from the cataclysm of WW2 and faced the black dream of a WW3 that would dwarf it - we their children are no better than modern monsters Assad and Putin.

I say we are better.

There seems to be an attitude on PP that nobody is allowed to do anything good if they have done bad stuff in the past, because “double standards”. This is the politics of despair and I refute it.

 

[KingKhanWC]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The Russian military says the alleged chemical attack in Syria was "staged and directed by Britain"</p>— Sky News Breaking (@SkyNewsBreak) <a href="https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/984808537451884545?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 13, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I believe the rebels were behind these chemical attacks and of course supported by nation states but it could be any of the Nato countries.

In Douma Jaish al-Islam took many hostages including women and children. They even paraded them in cages throughout the town, many of them were kidnapped from another town as they were thought to be Assad supporters. The US and others are backing a terrorist group who openly kindaps people and holds them hostage, not to mention the torture they inflicted. As they were being defeated, they staged this chemical attack in a desperate attempt to surive. Nato will now bomb the area to destroy the evidence and help them escape or fortify their held position inside the centre of the town.

 

[Robert]

It also doesn't mean they are telling the truth either.

Surely the lesson learned from 2003 is to present the evidence, but you dismissed this by claiming that politics is not a criminal court of law.

No independent evidence will be presented because the Russians will veto any U.N. investigation, as they already have six times with regard to this war.

Why do you think they have done that?

 

[Saeed]

OMG Russians can’t even lie properly. First no chemical weapon was used, then they blamed the White Helmets and now they are blaming it on Britain.

 

[R3verse Swing]

No independent evidence will be presented because the Russians will veto any U.N. investigation, as they already have six times with regard to this war.

Why do you think they have done that?

Small problem. May went in all guns blazing before any evidence, even now.

Russians can veto, as can China, they are on the UN permanent security council.

When US veto's against crimes on Palestinians, no one batters an eye lid, but no, 40 estimated souls who were injured through chemical attacks, and there'a a problem.

 

[Saeed]

As they were being defeated, they staged this chemical attack in a desperate attempt to surive. Nato will now bomb the area to destroy the evidence and help them escape or fortify their held position inside the centre of the town.

Get your information up to date. Jaish al-Islam has already left Douma and the whole area is under the Regime control since couple of days. All Chemicals weapons have been proven to be used by the Regime and Regime used it again because they didn’t want to fight a costly street to street battle with JAI. If NATO really wanted to overthrow him they would have done so by now, unfortunately American air strikes have only helped the Regime.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Get your information up to date. Jaish al-Islam has already left Douma and the whole area is under the Regime control since couple of days. All Chemicals weapons have been proven to be used by the Regime and Regime used it again because they didn’t want to fight a costly street to street battle with JAI. If NATO really wanted to overthrow him they would have done so by now, unfortunately American air strikes have only helped the Regime.

Buses were sent in today (Friday) and they are continuing to leave. Not all have left yet. Nothing has been proven, unless you want take the word of terrorists and state terrorists.

 

[Saeed]

Buses were sent in today (Friday) and they are continuing to leave. Not all have left yet. Nothing has been proven, unless you want take the word of terrorists and state terrorists.

Lol you really think I get all my information from “terorists”? Here is a pro Regime source.
First scenes from Douma after Russia declares victory in East Ghouta
https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/first-scenes-from-douma-after-russia-declares-victory-in-east-ghouta/

If they are leaving how can they fortify their positions? Simply won’t have the manpower the defend the fortified positions. Please stop making contradictory posts.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Lol you really think I get all my information from “terorists”? Here is a pro Regime source.
First scenes from Douma after Russia declares victory in East Ghouta
https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/first-scenes-from-douma-after-russia-declares-victory-in-east-ghouta/

If they are leaving how can they fortify their positions? Simply won’t have the manpower the defend the fortified positions. Please stop making contradictory posts.

I wrote escape OR foritfy as in the past some have stayed behind to fight to the death while others returned later on. If you had been following the news without anti-Assad googles you would know this.

 

[Robert]

Small problem. May went in all guns blazing before any evidence, even now.

Russians can veto, as can China, they are on the UN permanent security council.

When US veto's against crimes on Palestinians, no one batters an eye lid, but no, 40 estimated souls who were injured through chemical attacks, and there'a a problem.

I notice you avoided answering my question. USA / UK / France call six times for independent inquiry into who is using the chemical weapons, and six times Russia vetoes. Why does Russia want the truth hidden?

Come on, it’s easy.

 

[R3verse Swing]

I notice you avoided answering my question. USA / UK / France call six times for independent inquiry into who is using the chemical weapons, and six times Russia vetoes. Why does Russia want the truth hidden?

Come on, it’s easy.

No.

Russia vetoed a resolution on Syria, not chemical inspection/inquiry.

Infact Russia invited inspectors to confirm if chemical weapons were used or not.

 

[Robert]

No.

Russia vetoed a resolution on Syria, not chemical inspection/inquiry.

Infact Russia invited inspectors to confirm if chemical weapons were used or not.

Here you go.

https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2018/0411/953637-russia-syria-un-veto/

What were they seeking to hide from the UN by vetoing inspections all those times?

 

[R3verse Swing]

Here you go.

https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2018/0411/953637-russia-syria-un-veto/

What were they seeking to hide from the UN by vetoing inspections all those times?

Maybe they are just playing hardball and protecting their allies? Like the US does when vetoing to protect Israel?

USA drag UK into Iraq in 2003, Libya bombed back to the stong-age, Afghanistan a complete utter mess giving rise to the Taliban, Israel killing innocent Palestinians, BUT NO - lets save the Arabs because of a suspect chemical attack.

Russia invites Chemical experts:

Chemical weapons experts to inspect attack site in Syria

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.db871cae70b6

The international chemical weapons watchdog said Tuesday it was sending a fact-finding mission to the Syrian town where a suspected chemical gas attack took place over the weekend, following a request from the Syrian government and its Russian backers that appeared to be aimed at averting punitive Western military action.

It was not immediately clear whether the announcement would delay or prevent a U.S. strike in Syria. President Donald Trump has vowed to respond “forcefully” to Saturday’s attack on civilians in the town of Douma, and warned that Russia — or any other nation found to share responsibility — will “pay a price.”

Now I wonder why the US couldn't wait for the outcome of the fact finding mission. Hmmm. Remember David Kelly & Iraq?

 

[Robert]

I have had enough of this place for a while.

Taking a break.

 

[barah_admi]

Chemical Weapons Convention : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention

Guess which country has sign but not ratifed the convention? You guessed it, Israel.

Get this, Fourteen States Parties have declared chemical weapons production facilities:[11]

Bosnia and Herzegovina
China
France
India
Iran
Iraq
Japan
Libya
Russia
Serbia
Syria
United Kingdom
United States

You could not make this up!

With Robert you can make everything up.

Maybe he doesn't remember it's only been a few years since the UK and US used white phosphorus in Iraq... Which is illegal BTW.

 

[Saeed]

Few days ago Russia pretended that they actually want the investigation but now suddenly U.N. permit is needed. Typical delaying tactics from them.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING: Senior Russian diplomat says chemical weapons watchdog cannot access site of attack near Damascus without a U.N. permit.</p>— The Associated Press (@AP) <a href="https://twitter.com/AP/status/985843507817517060?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 16, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[barah_admi]

Few days ago Russia pretended that they actually want the investigation but now suddenly U.N. permit is needed. Typical delaying tactics from them.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING: Senior Russian diplomat says chemical weapons watchdog cannot access site of attack near Damascus without a U.N. permit.</p>— The Associated Press (@AP) <a href="https://twitter.com/AP/status/985843507817517060?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 16, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Of course a UN permit is needed, no UN body, not even the OPCW can access any sovereign state without a UN permit. Do you think they can just go where ever they like when ever they like? There is due process for everything.

Plus, all of this is redundant now. Why should Syrian government let anyone in now that they, a sovereign state, have been bombed by foreign powers? Shouldn't the US, UK, FRance and everyone else involved have waited for a completed investigation? Why did they jump in, possible kill civilians if those bombs had gone off on the wrong place, without an investigation even starting? Now they so badly want an investigation?

Come on.

 

[Markhor]

Honestly this debate about who was behind the chemical attack is pointless - even if Assad was confirmed as the culprit I still don't support military action in Syria. Its a quagmire that foreign intervention will worsen.

 

[Saeed]

Of course a UN permit is needed, no UN body, not even the OPCW can access any sovereign state without a UN permit. Do you think they can just go where ever they like when ever they like? There is due process for everything.

Plus, all of this is redundant now. Why should Syrian government let anyone in now that they, a sovereign state, have been bombed by foreign powers? Shouldn't the US, UK, FRance and everyone else involved have waited for a completed investigation? Why did they jump in, possible kill civilians if those bombs had gone off on the wrong place, without an investigation even starting? Now they so badly want an investigation?

Come on.

Why couldn’t Russia cite U.N. permit earlier as a reason for the delay? Now they are saying the delay is due to security concerns.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING: Head of chemical arms watchdog says Russia, Syria cite "pending security issues" before inspectors can visit Douma.</p>— The Associated Press (@AP) <a href="https://twitter.com/AP/status/985895476858904576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 16, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Why didn’t Russia wait for the investigation to complete before blaming everyone else? The fact is that Russia has been giving all sort of confusing statements, so its not surprising that they get the blame for causing obstruction.

Why should Syrian government let anyone in now that they, a sovereign state, have been bombed by foreign powers?

Ask that to the Syrian Ambassador to U.N. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Tragic comedy:<br>Syria's UN amb. accused US of delaying OPCW team in Beirut for a day out of fear of results & now Russia is holding them up after having given Robert Fisk full access. Fisk concluded that there was no gas attack - only a bunch of dust and people shouting "gas." <a href="https://t.co/8bHAkeysxH">https://t.co/8bHAkeysxH</a></p>— Mohammed K. Alyahya (@7yhy) <a href="https://twitter.com/7yhy/status/985929287290228736?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 16, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Because Syrian Regime and Russia are the ones who invited them in the first place, check post#164. The Regime and Russia are not doing some favors by allowing the OPCW to visit the site, its for their own sake. They can allow the OPCW team to investigate and end all the speculation for once and all. So far they have blamed everyone but themselves. If their allegations about The U.S, Britain and White helmets are true they should simply let the OPCW team to complete their investigation and make the western strikes look foolish. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a bad choice to treat them like a boy who cried wolf. Even Turkey, who has been trying it mend its relations with Russia supports the strikes due to Russia’s erratic behavior. Turkey could have easily stayed neutral and say nothing.