realweirdo wrote: » In any case your argument that the use of chemical weapons within Syria's own territory is legal is like most of your arguments bogus.http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/report-says-analysis-of-arms-used-in-chemical-weapons-attacks-points-to-syria-regime-1.1522552 No ifs buts or maybes about it.
Godge wrote: » So white phosphorous can be used, according to international law to screen troop movements. The US has admitted to using white phosphorous for screening purposes.Yet you somehow conclude that the US government appears to admit that white phosphorus was used in Falluja as a chemical weapon. I am not saying what is morally right or wrong, I am just pointing out that you have drawn an erroneous conclusion from your own evidence. you have done this by conflating what Field Artillery magazine said with what the US government said.
bumper234 wrote: » http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/nov/15/usa.iraq White phosphorus is not listed in the schedules of the Chemical Weapons Convention. It can be legally used as a flare to illuminate the battlefield, or to produce smoke to hide troop movements from the enemy. Like other unlisted substances, it may be deployed for "Military purposes... not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare". But it becomes a chemical weapon as soon as it is used directly against people. A chemical weapon can be "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm". White phosphorus is fat-soluble and burns spontaneously on contact with the air. According to globalsecurity.org: "The burns usually are multiple, deep, and variable in size. The solid in the eye produces severe injury. The particles continue to burn unless deprived of atmospheric oxygen... If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone." As it oxidises, it produces smoke composed of phosphorus pentoxide. According to the standard US industrial safety sheet, the smoke "releases heat on contact with moisture and will burn mucous surfaces... Contact... can cause severe eye burns and permanent damage." Until last week, the US state department maintained that US forces used white phosphorus shells "very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes". They were fired "to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters". Confronted with the new evidence, on Thursday it changed its position. "We have learned that some of the information we were provided ... is incorrect.White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, ie obscuring troop movements and, according to... Field Artillery magazine, 'as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes...' The article states that US forces used white phosphorus rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds." The US government, in other words, appears to admit that white phosphorus was used in Falluja as a chemical weapon.
realweirdo wrote: » Human Rights Watch has done the most extensive examination of the evidence and have concluded without a shadow of a doubt it was Assad. They can hardly be described as propagandists for the military industrial complex. It's probably inconsequential what you believe anyways.
bumper234 wrote: » I personally am still waiting for definitive evidence of this before saying it's ok to commit acts of war against another country.
Rascasse wrote: » When was the last time the US used chemical weapons? Agent Orange wasn't intended as a chemical weapon, though arguably it had the effect of a chemical weapon. Did they use them in WW1? If you are referring to DU and white phosphorous they are neither chemical weapons nor banned.
realweirdo wrote: » So do you accept now that Assad forces carried out the chemical weapons attack?
Customary international law bans the use of chemical weapons in all armed conflicts.
Tony EH wrote: » No...as Bumper has just pointed out Poland was under wartime occupation by Germany. It was still Poland. You really need to start thinking about the content of your posts before you hit the fire button lad, because you're shooting your mouth off a little too much, without any kind of care.
realweirdo wrote: » Poland was part of the German Reich at the time.
Tony EH wrote: » There's so much wrong with the crap above. The most obvious being that there was no gassing of Jews on German soil. Poland was selected. Pro tip: Poland is not in Germany
realweirdo wrote: » By that rationale, when Hitler gassed the Jews, no actual crime was committed since it was within his own borders. Having said that, the rest of the world didn't really care about the Jews. They only got annoyed with Hitler when he attacked them.
Jonny7 wrote: » Bit out-dated now, Obama has backed down from immediate strikes and the US/EU is adopting Putin's plan. We'll see if it's genuine or another stalling tactic. An unhealthy amount of journalists fall off ladders in that country
Eggy Baby! wrote: »
Much of that report was based on the assumption that Putin murders journalists due to the high death rate for journalists in that country during the Chechen wars.
RT are just a direct mouthpiece of the kremlin, there is no balance on that station, it's just unashamed 24/7 pro kremlin propaganda..its a joke...I'm willing to take most sources seriously, but using RT as a source I just immediatley turn off as do most people.
George Galloway is basically against everything, he's a troll, a shrill
rank Russian 142nd in the world
bmaxi wrote: » I don't recall mentioning the Washington Post or the NY Times or even the Guardian. Nixon was forty years ago when there was a little more morality in the media and investigative journalism was more than who's sleeping with whom. Suffice it to say that in today's world the media is about which mogul owns which channel or newspaper and which political party is in hock to them. As for George Galloway, I've never really been sure about where he is coming from but he certainly has been a thorn in the flesh of the British establishment. Maybe he's that rare creature, a true Socialist.
realweirdo wrote: » Not altogether true...Washington Post - brought down Nixon- hardly an example of towing the government line. New York Times published the Pentagon Papers, which helped bring the Vietnam War to a close. The Guardian published many wikileaks documents, which was detrimental to US and UK interests. The Independent in the UK which publishes Robert Fisk, a major critic of UK foreign policy. George Galloway is on Question Time in the UK every couple of weeks and is all over the airways in the UK including the BBC, more so than politicians who are in favour of intervention. There are thousands more examples or a platform given to people who oppose UK foreign policy. I can't imagine RT even criticising Putin. It's just a joke media organisation.
By that rationale, when Hitler gassed the Jews, no actual crime was committed since it was within his own borders.
Utter nonsense.
The reaction of most of the American electorate seems to be, "what's in it for us?"
I can't imagine RT even criticising Putin. It's just a joke media organisation.
bmaxi wrote: » A bit like Sky, CBS, NBC. All these channels, like some newspapers, have an agenda. I don't think RT is any worse than them when it comes to credibility. Just because you don't want to hear something doesn't mean it isn't true.
Tony EH wrote: » Actually what Eggy Baby said IS true. Syria is not a signatory to the CWC. In addition, the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which was ratified by Syria, doesn't state any illegality about using chemical weapons within one's own borders. So, if Assad did order CW to be used, or if one of his commanders on the ground did on his own steam, there has been no actual crime committed.
Rascasse wrote: » 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).
realweirdo wrote: » 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.
My name is URL wrote: » 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.
