Syria Again

Gatling wrote: »

So russia vetoed a UN investigation and condemnation of last weeks chemical weapons attack in Syria ,

It would almost be funny if it wasn't true

I thought I read earlier that Russia and the US had agreed that the UN should carry out an investigation? I'm nearly certain it was on the Sky News rolling newsbar an hour or so ago.

Yourself isit wrote:

Nation states may be new but nations aren't.

The problem arises when the two don't coincide.

That's the point.

Russia has vetoed a draft resolution at the UN Security Council that would have condemned last week's alleged chemical attack in Syria and demanded that Damascus cooperate with investigators.

The proposed resolution would have backed an investigation on the ground by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
The Syrian government would have been told to provide military information, including flight logs, from the day of the alleged attack, and provide access to air bases.

Damascus must cooperate. The Syrians must provide military information etc etc ... There is nothing in the draft resolution that calls for an investigation into terrorist involvement in the suspected chemical attack. It is completely one sided and biased. NATO are protecting their terrorist allies by insisting that only the Syrian Government could be responsible as the terrorists don't have chemical weapons.
It would be interesting to see Russia propose a resolution calling for an investigation into NATO support for jihadist terrorists, would it be vetoed .. would it what?!!!

Goes against any logic to use chemical weapons when he is getting the upper hand in the war. He may be bad enough but hes not dumb enough to use them.

Christy42 wrote: »

Why did he have them when he was decommissioned? Plus this is not the first time his use of chemical weapons have been critisize. This is just the first time there was a reaction.

You can keep repeating the mantra of he would not have used them but it simply does not hold up.

Where is the evidence he used Sarin gas? Who conducted the investigation?

Gringo180 wrote: »

Where is the evidence he used Sarin gas? Who conducted the investigation?

Well there was one proposed in the UN but it was blocked by Assad's allies...

Since you did not defend can we go forward from here acknowledging the argument that Assad would not use them is flawed?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I read online the Syrians bombed a chemical storage facility belonging to the rebels. The Syrians did not know the rebels had this stuff in the area. For me that's a plausible scenario.

Its either a false flag event or a mistake. Assad would not use chemicals weapons to kill civilians when he knows the world is watching.

No see there claiming they weren't​ investigation involved at all

That's the 4th or 5th explanation they offered but blocked a UN investigation that would have cleared them if they didn't do it.

And you don't know what Assad would or wouldn't do

Yourself isit wrote: »

You don't win arguments by repetition

Irony at its best

Christy42 wrote: »

Well there was one proposed in the UN but it was blocked by Assad's allies...

Since you did not defend can we go forward from here acknowledging the argument that Assad would not use them is flawed?

How is it flawed. Its common sense. Why use chemical weapons when this is one way he will lose support from very few of his allies and give the U.S justification to remove him from power? As I said he may be evil but he is no fool.

Back to your first sentence. America bombed that airbase without any investigation whatsoever. What concrete intelligence had they got to say Assad was the culprit of these chemical attacks? Is that the way the west conducts there military attacks on hearsay? Reminds me of the WMD excuse to destroy and kill millions in Iraq.

zimley wrote: »

USA bombed a ISIS location today, hit a chemical weapon stockpile, result is several hundred civillians dead from chemical weapons.
Now thats irony

Link?

Gringo180 wrote: »

How is it flawed. Its common sense. Why use chemical weapons when this is one way he will lose support from very few of his allies and give the U.S justification to remove him from power? As I said he may be evil but he is no fool.

Back to your first sentence. America bombed that airbase without any investigation whatsoever. What concrete intelligence had they got to say Assad was the culprit of these chemical attacks? Is that the way the west conducts there military attacks on hearsay? Reminds me of the WMD excuse to destroy and kill millions in Iraq.

Why did he have them when they were decommissioned before if they are such a terrible idea? You avoid this point entirely.

I am aware and feel the US did intervene earlier than was wise but that does not mean they did so incorrectly.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

How does that conclusively prove it was the SAA?

First of all, where did I say it did?

But seeing as you ask, Assads constant changing of his mind as to what actually happened puts him right in the firing line.

First he says the SAA didn't launch any strikes int hat area until at least 6 hours after the incident.

Then he said the SAA hit a rebel chemical depot and that's what released the gas.

Then he says the US hit an ISIL depot and that's what released the gas.

Make up your mind for **** sake Assad.

Who do you believe is responsible for it?

So who should we trust el diablo? Give us a recommendation of who's analysis you would believe?