Latest - Western forces prepare for Military strikes in Syria, strike just hours away

My name is URL wrote: »

The unemployed bloke working out of his bedroom with zero qualifications in forensic analysis and no real world experience of investigating events in conflict regions, yes.

Well he is not unemployed anymore as he is being paid for work by crowd sourcing
He is a blogger who writes interesting blog post about weapons and equipment
he sees in videos that's about it, and that's all it claims to be
He verifies a lot of what he sees by chatting with experts and others.

Videos are a source of information

He work is of high quality was been quoted and interviewed by dozens of media
outlets and organisations, among them the BBC if you actually read his blog(which you clearly have not) you would see he does not have any biases and in the past has exposed both sides wrong doing.
http://brown-moses.blogspot.ie/
wiki entry about him
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Higgins

alastair wrote: »

Fair play to the guy - he's found a niche and established a competency no-one else bothered with.

I have nothing against him. I do have something against the fact that the BBC et al are using him to verify videos which end up shaping public opinion.

You honestly see no issue with them availing of the services of an unqualified and inexperienced 'analyst'.. I bet your tune would change if RT were doing the same thing.

alastair

My name is URL wrote: »

The unemployed bloke working out of his bedroom with zero qualifications in forensic analysis and no real world experience of investigating events in conflict regions, yes.

And your credentials are...?

Fair play to the guy - he's found a niche and established a competency no-one else bothered with.

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Are you referring to the blogger/journalist "brown moses" Eliot Higgins

The unemployed bloke working out of his bedroom with zero qualifications in forensic analysis and no real world experience of investigating events in conflict regions, yes.

My name is URL wrote: »

The BBC have been using an unemployed bloke from Coventry to verify videos coming out of Syria.. he has no experience of anything related to conflict other than having watched 1000's of hours worth of stuff on YouTube

That's true journalism!

Are you referring to the blogger/journalist "brown moses" Eliot Higgins

Initial Investigation On Potential Chemical Weapons
Found In Syria
By: Richard M. Lloyd
Warhead Technology
Tesla Laboratory Inc.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/syria/Lloyd_warhead.pdf

A Preliminary Analysis of the Nerve Agent Attack of
August 21, 2013 Against
Unprotected Civilians in the Suburbs of Damascus, Syria
17.477
The Politics and Technology of Weapons of Weapons Systems
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Theodore A. Postol
Professor of Science, Technology, and National Security Policy

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/syria/iraq_syria.pdf

Rascasse

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Syria has not signed nor ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention. Therefore it under no legal obligation to give up chemical weapons. It's not legally obliged to restrict it's use of chemical weapons because it is not a signatory.

This isn't true. Syria is party to the Geneva Protocol forbidding use of chemical weapons. One big hole in the Geneva Protocol is that it is only focussed on use, not production, stockpiling or transfer of chemical weapons, that was the reason for the CWC. Syria's use of chemical weapons is also a war crime and should Assad not end up at the end of a rope I can imagine a referral to the ICC for this (and other acts).

Sierra Oscar

Military intervention is now off the table according to sources on capital hill. It is now looking likely that there will be no vote on the matter.

Eggy Baby!

sprinkle approx a dozen murdered journalists per year to make sure everything is in line

Yeah that's really politically correct....do you have evidence that those journalists were killed by the government or are you just perpetuating your anti-Russian slant that has become obvious throughout this thread and others?

I mean, come on. Many of those deaths you attribute to Putin's evil iron hand were actually caused by crossfire or were murder/kidnap-murders by Chechen extremist, for god's sake.

And thanks, Tony_EH for that defence of Russian involvement in WW2, although it was off topic- then again, you were lured off-topic by the voraciously pro-American realwierdo. I can only assume that that guy is employed in Intel or Dell considering his love of all things American. Not to mention his bizarre, David Cameron style rants where he states that our views on the American government/ it's foreign policy are irrelevant because we use American brand (not American made!) computers and iPhones.

I love those people who come out with ridiculous diarrhoea such as this because it just makes their position look so pathetic and indefensible and in the end helps us.

And regarding the off-topic tangent this thread went off on regarding Soviet involvement in WW2, Stalingrad, Berlin, Leningrad, Moscow, Kursk, Budapest, Seelow Heights etc. were not won by canned pork and boots from lend-lease. They were won by Soviet blood, for Christ's sakes. It's easy for us entitled, peace-generation types to sit back on our armchairs and criticise the greatest defence of a country that ever occurred in the history of mankind, a defence that resulted in millions of death and unquantifiable amounts of destruction and torment.

Nevertheless, Lend-Lease was a factor in the Soviet victory, but it is given far too much credit. Russophobes these days, as during the Cold War, seek to find anything that may seize credit from the Russians for their astounding victory over fascism- a war that they did not ask for. It was a war that was waged in order to exterminate them.

And all our generation does is crap all over their memories. It makes me sick inside.

Now regarding the bizarre pro-American slant of realweirdo. We have a problem with American foreign policy. I use American products etc. because they are made by American people. I don't have a problem with the American people, just with their government and it's behaviour overseas and (occasionally) domestically. I hope that the American people can boycott their sham of a government if it goes ahead with this illegal strike.

Syria has not signed nor ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention. Therefore it under no legal obligation to give up chemical weapons. It's not legally obliged to restrict it's use of chemical weapons because it is not a signatory.

So what guideline should we follow? International law or a speech Obama made some time ago where he made an obscure remark about a "red line" which he later sorta retracted?

But guess what? Some countries don't ratify conventions. The USA has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Should we enforce this convention on them even though they don't want to ratify it? It also doesn't recognise the authority of the ICC.

The American government (i'll just use this term from now on to repel voracious pro-Americans) says that if Syria's apparent (not certain) use of chemical weapons goes unpunished, it will create a culture of impunity.

Maybe. But if we fail to defend international laws and norms against warmongering rogue states like America, we will create an even more dangerous and volatile culture of impunity- we will create a world where international law is only a mere scrap of paper rather than guidelines that must be followed by every country in the world, no fricking exceptions.

(And another bit of info about international law- Israel regularly breaks UN resolutions. I believe it has set a record for the most ignored resolutions from the UN. So if the best buddy of the USA does these things then it can hardly claim to be the best defender of international law.)

So let's just hope that Barack "Ear Lingus" Obama and John "The Chin" Kerry get the egg in their faces that they deserve from this crisis. It will serve as a reminder that international law should reign supreme above all else in order for a more just world.

realweirdo wrote: »

A quote from that article

You call that convincing? I notice how RT conveniently left out this caveat.

He also says:

In other words, he is saying whoever accused him of saying Assad didn't carry out the attack is mad.

Did I say anything about convincing?

I simply posted the articles as comparison.

Amerika

The German newspaper Bild am Sonntag is reporting that the German Foreign Intelligence agency intercepted communications that Assad did not order or approve the sarin gas attack on 21 August – the event responsible for the decision by Obama to use a military deterrent. As leader of the country Assad is ultimately responsible for his military’s actions, but there is growing concern that it was not a sanctioned use of chemical weapons.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/09/201515/intercepts-caught-assad-rejecting.html

Putin saved Obama’s ass with his proposal, and sent a lifeline to avoid humiliation. Funny sometimes how a random chain of events can have so much meaning. John Kerry makes a blunder on the international stage. The US Congress probably won’t even put up the call for military action to a vote at this point. Putin cashes in on Kerry’s blunder and provides an opportunity that Obama will jump at and ultimately take the lion’s share of credit for. The medial will proclaim Obama a tactical genius by stopping the use of chemical weapons without firing a shot, even though the elimination of chemical weapon will be a long and arduous trudge, and probably unverifiable in the end, and civilians will continue to die in Syria, terrorists will continue to pour in, the region will become less stable, and interest will wane. But it’s all good, as the US can stay out of it for the most part and not provide further assistance to those who hate us. And hopefully other nations will take the lead for once to diminish the human toll and suffering in Syria. Any takers?

Assad agrees to put chemical weapons beyond use

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/syria-accepts-russian-chemical-weapons-proposal-29567800.html

However, Assad agreed last year to have a ceasefire with the opposition, and then broke it after 6 hours.

He agreed to allow UN inspectors inspect site of chemical attack but then blocked them for 5 days while his forces tried to destroy evidence.

He agreed to allow them interview opponents last year and then executed many of these witnesses afterwards.

I don't see Assad being compliant this time around either. Sounds like another attempt to buy more time but not deliver anything meaningful.

brimal

Human Right's Watch have concluded that the Assad regime is the most likely culprit for the attack.

Syria: Government Likely Culprit in Chemical Attack
(New York) – Available evidence strongly suggests that Syrian government forces were responsible for chemical weapons attacks on two Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013.

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

My name is URL wrote: »

The BBC have been using an unemployed bloke from Coventry to verify videos coming out of Syria

Odd, wonder where Bowden, Sinab, Pannell and others have been all these years - on a set right?

Tony EH wrote: »

Same story in La Stampa:

http://www.lastampa.it/2013/09/09/esteri/quirico-it-is-madness-to-say-i-knew-it-wasnt-assad-who-used-gas-FjJDJ8oeEI19AZbyKIVBHJ/pagina.html

A quote from that article

“I don’t know if any of this is true and I cannot say for sure that it is true because I have no means of confirming the truth of what was said. I don’t know how reliable this information is and cannot confirm the identity of these people. I am in no position to say for sure whether this conversation is based on real fact or just hearsay and I don’t usually call conversations I have heard through a door, true,” Quirico said.

You call that convincing? I notice how RT conveniently left out this caveat.

He also says:

It is madness to say I knew it wasn’t Assad who used gas,” Quirico added.

In other words, he is saying whoever accused him of saying Assad didn't carry out the attack is mad.

Gringo180 wrote: »

And the BBC and Sky are?

I'd trust someone like Reuters over most of these channels.

As for RT, it's just predictable....Rebels carried out the attack etc etc...fake interview with fake rebel whose more than likely a paid actor...Then they go to some guy on Skype in America who hates all things American for "analysis", which is usually just a parroting of their own views.
No-one takes RT seriously....They do a good line in fiction.

realweirdo wrote: »

Source?

Listen to the podcast on this page - http://www.newstalk.ie/War-apps--new-technology-being-used-to-detect-gunfire

It's mentioned by a member of the BBC News team towards the end of the interview.

My name is URL wrote: »

The BBC have been using an unemployed bloke from Coventry to verify videos coming out of Syria.. he has no experience of anything related to conflict other than having watched 1000's of hours worth of stuff on YouTube

That's true journalism!

Source?

Gringo180 wrote: »

And the BBC and Sky are?

The BBC have been using an unemployed bloke from Coventry to verify videos coming out of Syria.. he has no experience of anything related to conflict other than having watched 1000's of hours worth of stuff on YouTube

That's true journalism!

Same story in La Stampa:

http://www.lastampa.it/2013/09/09/esteri/quirico-it-is-madness-to-say-i-knew-it-wasnt-assad-who-used-gas-FjJDJ8oeEI19AZbyKIVBHJ/pagina.html

Gringo180 wrote: »

And the BBC and Sky are?

Take Sky trash news..

take it off air.

Replace it with colourised English speaking equivalents of Goebbels German specials - have the ex-communist TASS agency run it..

sprinkle approx a dozen murdered journalists per year to make sure everything is in line

et voila - Russia Today

Funny how the BBC version of the story is incredibly different:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24011595

Gringo180

realweirdo wrote: »

You do realise you are quoting from Kremlin mouthpiece RT??

Once I saw your source, I stopped reading as RT is not an independent CREDIBLE source.

And the BBC and Sky are?

renegademaster wrote: »

http://rt.com/news/chemical-weapons-rebels-captives-632/

Chemical attack was rebel provocation, former captives say
Published time: September 10, 2013 03:24
Edited time: September 10, 2013 08:33 Get short URL

You do realise you are quoting from Kremlin mouthpiece RT??

Once I saw your source, I stopped reading as RT is not an independent CREDIBLE source.

Manach

Tony EH wrote: »

I better start writing that history book, then, because everybody from Basil Liddel Hart to David Glanz has been woefully wrong all this time!
:pac:

Again this is going OT, but contextually (ie from my personal pro-US worldview) that while the US lend-lease did significantly aid the Soviet cause and shorten the duration of the war in the East, it was in the main part their own Soviet Generals, tactics and technology that swung the war for them - based on my reading of various German post war military accounts.

I better start writing that history book, then, because everybody from Basil Liddel Hart to David Glanz has been woefully wrong all this time!

:pac:

Amerika

Tony EH wrote: »

Actually, if you leaned a bit of history yourself, you'd find that it was Russia who did the lion's share of fighting against the Germans in WWII.

But Russia was only able to beat back the Germans because of the US Lend-Lease Act... and primarily the Studebaker US6 2.5 ton truck to haul troops, supplies, munitions and able to tow artillery pieces.

Back on the actual subject

France has proposed a UN resolution based on Russia's proposal - to remove the chemical weapons out of Syria. Not really going to solve or help the situation much but it's something. Ironically I expect the Russians to obstruct again on a technicality, but we'll see.