SYRIA WAR MEGATHREAD - Mod Note First Post

Dave!

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

are you serious?

Yes. I assume you're insinuating bias of some sort because the charity is based in the U.S.? You don't feel that you might have to substantiate your suggestion at all, no? They're based in the U.S., therefore we have to disregard whatever they say?

dublinbhoy88

Dave! wrote: »

Yes. I assume you're insinuating bias of some sort because the charity is based in the U.S.? You don't feel that you might have to substantiate your suggestion at all, no? They're based in the U.S., therefore we have to disregard whatever they say?

so what's their opinion on Israel and the U.S using chemical weapons in recent times?

NTMK

Dave! wrote: »

Yes. I assume you're insinuating bias of some sort because the charity is based in the U.S.? You don't feel that you might have to substantiate your suggestion at all, no? They're based in the U.S., therefore we have to disregard whatever they say?

They've been criticised before for mimicking US foreign policy on more than one occassion in the past iirc and the way they're funded is also in question (small number of very wealthy donators). Im waiting for another NGO to back them up

My name is URL

Dave! wrote: »

Yes. I assume you're insinuating bias of some sort because the charity is based in the U.S.? You don't feel that you might have to substantiate your suggestion at all, no? They're based in the U.S., therefore we have to disregard whatever they say?

To be fair, HRW have drawn a lot of criticism and controvery in the past. All sorts of groups have accused them of biases, ignoring certain abuses and acting as a conduit for supporting US foreign policy.

There's an entire Wiki page dedicated to listing it all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch

I'm not saying they're being biased in this instance but people can make up their own minds on that.

I doubt that brimal would take their word on certain issues regarding Israel, yet he seems happy enough to do so here. Nobody is immune from cognitive dissonance, I guess.

dublinbhoy88

Syria has agreed to hand over its chemical weapons.

Dave!

If there are specific criticisms then they should be discussed, but it looks like the basis of dublinbhoy88's opposition to them is that they're based in the U.S., and are therefore corrupt and to be ignored.

sin_city

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

so what's their opinion on Israel and the U.S using chemical weapons in recent times?

Yes, what is their opinion on this:

and this

http://media.salon.com/2012/06/napalm.jpg

http://displacedpalestinians.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/gaza-boy-blinded-by-white-phosphorus.jpg

I don't know whether or not Syria used chemical weapons. I have yet to see the proof other than similar proof to that of the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Would Assad really do this on the day UN inspectors arrive?

Chemical weapons were used in Syria earlier this year....and this was confirmed to be by the rebels.

Maybe Assad did use them. I've looked at him asking for proof from the US.

Pity the Human Watch crowd never got coverage about the million or so dead Iraqis, the million or so dead or deformed Vietnamese, the current numerous victims of daily drone strikes....where the hell are they on these issues?????

MonaPizza

-aurora wrote: »

I wouldnt call the Fallujah case use of chemical weapons. Certainly not like conventional chemical weapons ie a nerve agent/gas. But definitely in terms of long term consequences very serious and also far more people killed/injured- a toll still rising if you include defects/cancers.
But thats not how US decision makers see it

So incendiary phosphor that melts people isn't as bad as gas that asphyxiates them?

People need to stop allowing themselves to be fooled by nomenclature games and relabelling things to make them sound acceptable on one side and unacceptable on the other.

The rebels in Syria used Sarin gas in March....they're not being threatened with having crossed some red line.

brimal

I provided the Human Rights Watch report as it's a bit more credible than the sub-standard links/evidence posted on here lately (RT, Press TV, 30 second clips of Obama with no context, etc.)

The report goes into much more detail than any news report or Youtube video has.

I leave it up to the reader to make up their own mind. I'm well aware HRW has it's criticisms, as do other organisations such as Amnesty International, etc.

My name is URL wrote: »

I doubt that brimal would take their word on certain issues regarding Israel, yet he seems happy enough to do so here. Nobody is immune from cognitive dissonance, I guess.

Excuse me but what has my position on Israel got to do with this? Do you read back on my posts or are you making blind assumptions based on my location?

And who are you to suggest what I do and don't believe from HRW? I never made any comment on this piece by HRW yet but you claim I 'seem happy enough' with the report. I suggest you wait until I actually make a comment on HRW, be it Syria or Israel, before you make assumptions about me, and my position on HRW.

karma_

Putin has played a blinder and has made the US, Britain and France look like idiots over this.

WakeUp

brimal wrote: »

Human Right's Watch have concluded that the Assad regime is the most likely culprit for the attack.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/10/syria-government-likely-culprit-chemical-attack

I haven't read through it yet, but here's the report - http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/syria_cw0913_web_0.pdf

There is nothing new in the HRW analysis, analysis being the key word, that isnt already out there. This isnt to dismiss everything they hypothisize out of hand, the analysis does not categorically link or prove Assad / Assads government ordered the attack which is what the Americans are claiming.

The US insist they have evidence linking Assads government directly to the attack but we are yet to see a single piece of concrete evidence. No satelite imagery, no transript of alleged Syrian military communications. Circumstantial but no proof. The Americans need to prove their case and so far they havent. If they have such evidence present it to the world.

force eleven wrote: »

So, even if this chemical weapons decommissioning plan actually works, there is still the urgent need for a cease fire to be agreed, and that looks impossible at the minute.

For all sorts of reasons the plan put forward by the Russians will be nearly impossible to implement and thats if all parties involved can reach a consensus as to how it might be done. Syria isnt about chemical weapons they are still going to be attacked. Putin is a strategist he pounced on John Kerrys off the cuff comments and checked the US. Putins knows they dont care about chemical weapons what he has done is unveiled the mask of hypocrisy of the humanitarian caring US love bombs and revealed their true intentions just that little bit more. Kerry strikes me as being a bit stupid. Obama is intelligent though Putin is making a show of both of them. The Americans can not collectively be this ditheringly stupid something is afoot.

-aurora

Syrian Foreign Minister called Kerrys Bluff and agreed to hand over all chemical weapons. US still pushing for a strike, No surprise there

MonaPizza

Dave! wrote: »

Yes. I assume you're insinuating bias of some sort because the charity is based in the U.S.? You don't feel that you might have to substantiate your suggestion at all, no? They're based in the U.S., therefore we have to disregard whatever they say?

HRW has time and again shown itself to be skewed towards Washington's stance on things and displayed this clearly when it called Venezuela the "most abusive" nation in Latin America. It provided no information to backup this startling claim and I'm only assuming that they provided zero evidence to backup their claim that it was Assad who was responsible for chemical weapons attacks within Syria.

Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfHf8PLE_T0

donegal__road

brimal wrote: »

I provided the Human Rights Watch report as it's a bit more credible than the sub-standard links/evidence posted on here lately (RT, Press TV, 30 second clips of Obama with no context, etc.)

Hilary Clinton watches RT, and in fact put Al Jazeera, CCTV and RT ahead of American domestic news channels... saying 'we are losing the global information war'

Link

Shalom

SEPT 23 1989

Seems like Obama just wants to send in the rockets

he is going to destroy his presidency by the time this is all over

My name is URL

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Seems like Obama just wants to send in the rockets

he is going to destroy his presidency by the time this is all over

He's destroyed it ten times over already!

Seaneh

brimal wrote: »

Excuse me but what has my position on Israel got to do with this? Do you read back on my posts or are you making blind assumptions based on my location?

So do you feel that HRW are accurate in the investigations into (particularly) "Cast Lead" and (to a lesser extent) "Pillar of Defense" where they concluded that Israel targeted civilians with White Phosphorous (which is an illegal use of an incendiary as a chemical weapon)?

You can't pick and choose when you decide HRW are credible and when they aren't because you happen to be a foreign white settler in occupied territory.

donegal__road

Nobel Peace laureate, Mairead Maguire tells her account of her recent visit to Syria.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msA35ATXol8

Hande hoche!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-sdO6pwVHQ

spank_inferno

I do wonder if Americans realise their presidents desperate urge to be the artillary & air force for Al-Queda.... All to dominate the most oppressed faction in the Middle East.... Christians.

Jonny7

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Seems like Obama just wants to send in the rockets

Obama has accepted the Russian plan.

Not only that but the Russians even handed the implementation over to the yanks.

Jonny7

MonaPizza wrote: »

HRW has time and again shown itself to be skewed towards Washington's stance on things and displayed this clearly when it called Venezuela the "most abusive" nation in Latin America.

"President Hugo Chávez, who governed Venezuela for 14 years, was elected to another six-year term in October 2012. He died in March 2013. During his presidency, the accumulation of power in the executive branch and the erosion of human rights guarantees enabled his government to intimidate, censor, and prosecute Venezuelans who criticized the president or thwarted his political agenda. President Chávez and his supporters used their powers in a wide range of cases involving the judiciary, the media, and human rights defenders. Prison violence and police abuse remain serious problems."

Cannot be argued with. Even the present pro-Chavez government have been forced to admit the country is in a ****e state.

dublinbhoy88

Jonny7 wrote: »

"President Hugo Chávez, who governed Venezuela for 14 years, was elected to another six-year term in October 2012. He died in March 2013. During his presidency, the accumulation of power in the executive branch and the erosion of human rights guarantees enabled his government to intimidate, censor, and prosecute Venezuelans who criticized the president or thwarted his political agenda. President Chávez and his supporters used their powers in a wide range of cases involving the judiciary, the media, and human rights defenders. Prison violence and police abuse remain serious problems."

Cannot be argued with. Even the present pro-Chavez government have been forced to admit the country is in a ****e state.

Just like any other country so

Leftist

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

Just like any other country so

yes, because every other country has six term heads of state and one of the most violent capitals in the world.

RobertKK

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html

A lot of sense coming from Putin on the matter of Syria.

karma_

Jonny7 wrote: »

Cannot be argued with. Even the present pro-Chavez government have been forced to admit the country is in a ****e state.

It may have it's problems but the country has rose up the UN rankings, literacy has been significantly improved and a great many people have been lifted out of poverty and health care that had been absent has also been massively improved. Oh and the elections were fair.

Seems all the right wing care about is the rights of the rich to make even more money whilst fúcking over the poor.

danniemcq

For those interested in Chavez look up the movie/documentary "the revolution will not be televised".

A group of filmmakers working for TG4 were there when the US back coup was attempted in 2003.

donegal__road

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_hhpGSZi84

WakeUp

RobertKK wrote: »

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html

A lot of sense coming from Putin on the matter of Syria.

Thats an astonishing letter truth be told, Putin is twisting the knife displaying a mastery that appears way above Obama and the Americans. And that makes me suspicious as the Americans for all their faults are not stupid and know how to play the game. Putin talks a lot of sense as you say but there is a tint of hypocrisy in some of what he says that shouldnt be overlooked from what I can see. Russia is no defender of human rights no more than America. He attacks the character of the US and how they perceive themselves without holding back even slightly. Looking at what he says closely, its a brilliantly drafted fck you to the US he even inserted a reminder to Obama and the Americans if it was needed that Russia is a nuclear power.

"if you have the bomb, no one will touch you"

We have the US wanting to be Al Qaedas airforce with Russia now the defender of UN and international law you couldnt really make it up only this is how its playing out.

My name is URL

RobertKK wrote: »

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html

A lot of sense coming from Putin on the matter of Syria.

That's incredible. Not just the letter, but the fact that Putin would opt to speak directly to the American people in such a candid way.

Really making the Obama administration look like complete amateurs.