And next, Syria?

[uk benzo]

I love how the US government is creaming its pants over chemical weapons when in the recent past it stood there all frigid when Israel dropped a shit load of phosphorous bombs on Ghazza. In fact didn't the US flatten Fallujah with depleted uranium.

Their fake outrage sickens me.

 

[phildwyer]

A very good article by Robert Fisk in todays Independent on that subject .


They may be fighting for Syria, not Assad. They may also be winning

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...t-fisk-reports-from-inside-syria-8590636.html

In which the Syrian army claim the "rebels" are speaking Turkish over the radio.

Wtf? Who could they be? The Turkish army seems the only possibility. And yet:

"Colonel Mohamed remarks quietly that when they stormed into the village, they found cars and trucks with Turkish military plates – but no Turkish soldiers."

 

[Fuchs66]

I love how the US government is creaming its pants over chemical weapons when in the recent past it stood there all frigid when Israel dropped a shit load of phosphorous bombs on Ghazza. In fact didn't the US flatten Fallujah with depleted uranium.

Their fake outrage sickens me.

Despite the morality of the issues it all comes down to International law and its many loopholes. Phosphorous is legal if its primary purpose is to produce smoke (although the fumes are toxic and contact with the burning particles of phosphorous can cause terrible burns). DU munitions are similarly not banned, despite the many concerns about their toxic effects, because the primary purpose of such munitions is not to poison. Chemical weapons on the other hand are banned as their primary purpose is the toxic effects they produce and cant be excused with some secondary effect.

Shit situation but that's how the world works at the moment.

 

[camouflage]

Despite the morality of the issues it all comes down to International law and its many loopholes. Phosphorous is legal if its primary purpose is to produce smoke (although the fumes are toxic and contact with the burning particles of phosphorous can cause terrible burns). DU munitions are similarly not banned, despite the many concerns about their toxic effects, because the primary purpose of such munitions is not to poison. Chemical weapons on the other hand are banned as their primary purpose is the toxic effects they produce and cant be excused with some secondary effect.

Shit situation but that's how the world works at the moment.

Not sure what your point is here, but clearly the dominating principal of international affairs is that Might is Right, the principal of Raw Power was undeniably reasserted during the Bush/Blair years and here we see that the Washington Gang is unable to intervene directly in Syria because that nation is under the protection of Russia, Syria's own anti-air power and Chinese/Russian diplomatic strength at the Security Council level. We see how the world works, regardless of the fairae tales and indeed we see it 'working', as there is no imminent sign of a NATO 'no fly-zone' (close air support for Al Qaeda et al) in the works.

 

[elbows]

That doesnt mean every bit of international law, conventions and treaties are utterly worthless though. There are double-standards, loopholes and occasions and areas where stuff will be ignored, but other things remain intact. For example a variety of nuclear test bans have been honoured by the major players, as have things relating to chemical weapons as they relate to a variety of substances. The US has to think carefully before breaking the rules, because it often uses the rules and frameworks as a means of projecting its power. So in areas where they have no intention of sticking to the rules, they often fail to sign up to them in the first place. Of course it isnt always that simple, they break their own rules sometimes, but it comes at a price.

As far as I know Syria never signed up to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

 

[Fuchs66]

Not sure what your point is here,

My point was (and in reply to that one particular post) that while there are very specific international laws and treaties banning the use of chemical weapons there is no such specific legislation banning either phosphorous or DU munitions.

There are treaties and agreements that attempt to ban certain uses of these weapons e.g. use of phosphorous for it's incendiary properties against non-military targets but to enforce these you have to prove intent which is difficult enough under normal circumstances never mind on the battlefield.

 

[Fuchs66]

That doesnt mean every bit of international law, conventions and treaties are utterly worthless though. There are double-standards, loopholes and occasions and areas where stuff will be ignored, but other things remain intact. For example a variety of nuclear test bans have been honoured by the major players, as have things relating to chemical weapons as they relate to a variety of substances. The US has to think carefully before breaking the rules, because it often uses the rules and frameworks as a means of projecting its power. So in areas where they have no intention of sticking to the rules, they often fail to sign up to them in the first place. Of course it isnt always that simple, they break their own rules sometimes, but it comes at a price.

As far as I know Syria never signed up to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

I agree and on the whole such treaties and laws work as well as the major parties to them want them to work, I would be a hypocrite if I said anything else.

True Syria has not signed the CWC, however it is a party to the Geneva Protocols of 1925 banning the use of chemical weapons so there is a legal framework of sorts for a UN led mission.

 

[coley]

I agree and on the whole such treaties and laws work as well as the major parties to them want them to work, I would be a hypocrite if I said anything else.

True Syria has not signed the CWC, however it is a party to the Geneva Protocols of 1925 banning the use of chemical weapons so there is a legal framework of sorts for a UN led mission.

Not as long as China and Russia block things, they need reminding they may well be the recipients of any chemical agents falling into the wrong hands.

 

[camouflage]

Not as long as China and Russia block things, they need reminding they may well be the recipients of any chemical agents falling into the wrong hands.

ironic.

 

[Casually Red]

In which the Syrian army claim the "rebels" are speaking Turkish over the radio.

Wtf? Who could they be? The Turkish army seems the only possibility. And yet:

"Colonel Mohamed remarks quietly that when they stormed into the village, they found cars and trucks with Turkish military plates – but no Turkish soldiers."

Turkey makes virtually no attempt to hide the fact it supplies military assistance to the rebels and jihadists . Presumablly that includes this sort of "non lethal equipment". Are you seriously disputing the charge that Turkey , a NATO country, supplies those forces with equipment

 

[Casually Red]

That doesnt mean every bit of international law, conventions and treaties are utterly worthless though. There are double-standards, loopholes and occasions and areas where stuff will be ignored, but other things remain intact. For example a variety of nuclear test bans have been honoured by the major players, as have things relating to chemical weapons as they relate to a variety of substances. The US has to think carefully before breaking the rules, because it often uses the rules and frameworks as a means of projecting its power. So in areas where they have no intention of sticking to the rules, they often fail to sign up to them in the first place. Of course it isnt always that simple, they break their own rules sometimes, but it comes at a price.

As far as I know Syria never signed up to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

and as far as anyone knows theres no evidence bar some very dodgy accusations from the jihadists that Syria has ever used such weapons .

 

[phildwyer]

Turkey makes virtually no attempt to hide the fact it supplies military assistance to the rebels and jihadists . Presumablly that includes this sort of "non lethal equipment". Are you seriously disputing the charge that Turkey , a NATO country, supplies those forces with equipment

I've no idea, but I live in Turkey much of the time and the government is keeping any such intervention quiet, as the populace would definitely not approve.

Besides which the article suggests that not only equipment but also men are being supplied by the Turkish government, which I do find surprising.

 

[Casually Red]

[quote="phildwyer, post: 12191590, member: 14741

I've no idea, but I live in Turkey much of the time and the government is keeping any such intervention quiet, as the populace would definitely not approve.

Thats quite a staggering statement bearing in mind just last week US secretary of Stae John Kerry , standing in Istanbul alongside the Turkish foreign Minister and the FSA leadership publicly urged all NATO countries, including Turkey, to dramatically increase their supplies to the rebels .
I cant imagine how that equates with keeping it quiet, bearing in mind the FSA have their headquarters in Istanbul too . And that the entire foreign press are openly trumpetting the lengths Turkey is going to to aid the rebels and funnel the aid from other countries as well .

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/w...bels-expands-with-cia-aid.html?pagewanted=all

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/m...ebels-say-turkey-is-arming-and-training-them/

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-hails-move-to-arm-syria-rebels.aspx?pageID=238&nid=43005

It baffles me how you can regard that as Turkey keeping its intervention quiet .

Besides which the article suggests that not only equipment but also men are being supplied by the Turkish government, which I do find surprising.

the unit was only a few miles from the Turkish border . Rebel groups are not only being trained and armed by NATO countries NATO advisors are directing them on the ground . Turkey is a NATO country . It doesnt take a lot of Turkish troops . It only takes a few Turkish advisors on the ground to co ordinate the activities of the jihadists .[/quote]

 

[phildwyer]

Thats quite a staggering statement bearing in mind just last week US secretary of Stae John Kerry , standing in Istanbul alongside the Turkish foreign Minister and the FSA leadership publicly urged all NATO countries, including Turkey, to dramatically increase their supplies to the rebels .

I confess this is news to me. It's quite a U-turn by Erdogan, who was urging everyone to stay out of Syria as recently as March. It certainly won't be trumpeted within Turkey if the government can avoid it. I note that Hurriyet says only that "Turkey is supporting measures toward arming Syrian rebels..."

the unit was only a few miles from the Turkish border . Rebel groups are not only being trained and armed by NATO countries NATO advisors are directing them on the ground . Turkey is a NATO country . It doesnt take a lot of Turkish troops . It only takes a few Turkish advisors on the ground to co ordinate the activities of the jihadists

I may be wrong, but I doubt the Turkish public is aware that Turkish troops are currently in Syria. If they are, the government is risking a serious backlash from its own supporters.

 

[Casually Red]

I confess this is news to me. It's quite a U-turn by Erdogan, who was urging everyone to stay out of Syria as recently as March. It certainly won't be trumpeted within Turkey if the government can avoid it. I note that Hurriyet says only that "Turkey is supporting measures toward arming Syrian rebels..."

this may come as a shock to you but politicians sometimes do this very dishonest thing were they say one thing to appeal to one set of supporters... while actually doing the precise opposite !!! . Its shocking I agree .

Regardless what he was saying in March, Turkey has been the main conduit for Saudi, Libyan , Qatari and others arms shipments for a very long time now . And without doubt supplying their own stuff as well .

 

[phildwyer]

this may come as a shock to you but politicians sometimes do this very dishonest thing were they say one thing to appeal to one set of supporters... while actually doing the precise opposite !!! . Its shocking I agree .

Thing is, none of their domestic supporters would support this. The Americans must have videotape of Erdogan with a rent boy.

 

[camouflage]

Thing is, none of their domestic supporters would support this. The Americans must have videotape of Erdogan with a rent boy.

this is permissible, it's only gay if you're the bum.

 

[camouflage]

Massive terrorist attack in down-town Damascus today...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/intern...bing_in_damascus_kills_aRPZ0qM2LB4kAn7AJx0fzK

Syrian TV said Tuesday's explosion was caused by a "terrorist bombing" in the district of Marjeh, a commercial area in central Damascus. Assad's regime refers to opposition fighters as "terrorists."

Huh, what an odd thing to say.

Rant by Neil Clark of the Guardian here:
http://rt.com/op-edge/syria-blast-rebels-us-624/

“And it’s absolutely shameful that these people are being backed by my country – the UK, by France, by the Western powers. These are terrorist attacks, let’s call them what they are. They haven’t been condemned by [UK’s Foreign Secretary and First Secretary of State] William Hague or [French President] Francois Hollande or [US Secretary of State] John Kerry. I think that’s absolutely appalling because if these had taken place in Tel Aviv or Riyadh or anywhere else in the country, which is a Western ally, then they would be roundly condemned, but they’re not. And it’s quite appalling that these so called rebels – with Western help – are trying to bomb their way to power in Syria, killing innocent civilians, spreading terror among the population. And I think that the likes of William Hague have blood on their hands, I’m afraid.”

Sound points imo.

 

[elbows]

Its not surprising though. If anything is surprising its that they've been prepared to back this sort of thing quite so openly when the 'war on terror' is still used to justify the opposite response elsewhere. Granted one of the problems with the 'war on terror' rhetoric was that it was always quite likely to expose a range of bloody hypocrisy of the highest order at some point, and its testament to the 'quality' of the press that they've managed not to point this out very often, and feign surprise and disgust when they do.

 

[coley]

Is there a link between the use of indiscriminate bombings and the arrival of foreign jihadists?

 

[Casually Red]

Its not surprising though. If anything is surprising its that they've been prepared to back this sort of thing quite so openly when the 'war on terror' is still used to justify the opposite response elsewhere. Granted one of the problems with the 'war on terror' rhetoric was that it was always quite likely to expose a range of bloody hypocrisy of the highest order at some point, and its testament to the 'quality' of the press that they've managed not to point this out very often, and feign surprise and disgust when they do.

theyre unlikely to condemn it when its probably the same governments who organised it . If the British government can do it in Dublin they can certainly do it in Damascus . Utter fucking hypocrites .

 

[TomUS]

Massive terrorist attack in down-town Damascus today...

But they almost got the Syrian PM yesterday....just his body guard dead. Better luck next time rebs. Assad only controls central Damascus now.....only a matter of time until the house of cards comes down.

 

[Casually Red]

there were 5 civilian passersby killed as well
and your better luck next time wish has been granted as they managed to slaughter a dozen 24 hours later

twat

 

[goldenecitrone]

there were 5 civilian passersby killed as well
and your better luck next time wish has been granted as they managed to slaughter a dozen 24 hours later

twat

How many civilians has the Assad regime killed in the last 2 years? More than 5 I reckon.

 

[Casually Red]

How many civilians has the Assad regime killed in the last 2 years? More than 5 I reckon.

how many are on here cheering it

btw how many civilians do you estimate the jihadists have killed, beheaded etc

a bit more than 5 maybe

 

[TomUS]

how many are on here cheering it

One that I know of.....you.

btw how many civilians do you estimate the jihadists have killed, beheaded etc

The rebs/jihadists have killed a tiny, tiny fraction of the number killed by the Assad boys...what is it up to now....80,000?....can't keep track any more. Bombing civilian neighborhoods & using cluster munitions. How can you in good conscience defended this?

 

[thriller]

both sides are as bad as each other, but for the balance of power, syria cannot fall to the sunnis. if it does, Bahrain must topple the sunnis out of power to counter weight. Sunnis are weak. only people who provide any sort of effective resistance against Israel are the shias.

 

[teqniq]

Atrocities have been committed by all sides and there are agendas and geopolitical interests everywhere. The only thing that is certain is that many Syrian people have died needlessly and more will do so. Meanwhile powerful interests continue to meddle both directly and indirectly. It's a sad, disgusting state of affairs for which we ought to be collectively ashamed of ourselves.

 

[Casually Red]

One that I know of.....you.


The rebs/jihadists have killed a tiny, tiny fraction of the number killed by the Assad boys...what is it up to now....80,000?....can't keep track any more. Bombing civilian neighborhoods & using cluster munitions. How can you in good conscience defended this?

weres your source for this . Theres a full scale civil war and your claiming virtually its entire death toll is the work of the Syrian army .

bollocks, your talking out your arse . Again .

 

[Casually Red]

both sides are as bad as each other, but for the balance of power, syria cannot fall to the sunnis. if it does, Bahrain must topple the sunnis out of power to counter weight. Sunnis are weak. only people who provide any sort of effective resistance against Israel are the shias.

Syria is predominantly Sunni and Assad simply could not retain power without the support of a syrian majority . The majority of the Syrian Arab army are Sunni .The leading Sunni cleric in Syria was a firm supporter of Assad until the jihadists murdered him in a mosque along with over 40 other sunnis a few weeks ago . All sections of Syrian society are fighting against these often imported assholes . Sectarianising the conflict is precisely what the west and the zionists want .